col-xs-12
col-sm-12
col-md-12
col-lg-12
col-xs-12
col-sm-12
col-md-12
col-lg-12
videoType
dynamic-media
videoDmUrl
https://delivery-p136806-e1377785.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:064d3b4a-8b6e-4afc-b079-80ca5c1549df/play?assetname=2022_12_06_DECRG_EconomicImpactsUkraineWar.mp4
keyFrameImage
timestamp

00:02 OK,

00:02 thanks everyone.

00:03 I guess we can get started and,

00:04 and,

00:04 and,

00:05 uh,

00:05 people will join as we,

00:07 as we

00:09 start the introductions here.

00:10 So hi,

00:11 hello everyone.

00:11 Uh my name is Dion Filmer,

00:12 I'm the director of the World Bank's Development Research Group.

00:15 Uh,

00:16 welcome to this uh policy research talk,

00:18 the last of 2022.

00:21 Um,

00:21 as many of you know,

00:22 these talks give us an opportunity to present the

00:24 work coming out of the World Bank's research group.

00:28 Uh,

00:28 with the goal of sharing the findings

00:30 with colleagues inside and outside the department,

00:32 uh,

00:33 along with others outside the World Bank.

00:34 And with that,

00:35 um,

00:36 let me welcome our audiences

00:38 on both Webex as well as YouTube.

00:41 Um,

00:41 today we have a slightly different format than our usual.

00:44 Uh,

00:44 we have 3 presenters who will be giving relatively brief presentations.

00:48 We have Erhan Artuk,

00:50 Klaus Deininger,

00:50 and Bob Rikers.

00:52 They'll each provide us an overview of their research,

00:55 uh,

00:55 into the costs of,

00:57 of the war in Ukraine on in terms of human well-being,

01:01 both within Ukraine itself,

01:03 as well as around the world.

01:05 Erhan is a senior economist in the trade and integration,

01:08 uh,

01:09 team,

01:09 uh,

01:10 and his research primarily focuses on international trade policy

01:13 and its effect on labor markets and jobs.

01:16 Uh,

01:16 Klaus,

01:17 uh,

01:17 is a lead economist in the sustainability infrastructure team.

01:21 Uh,

01:22 focuses,

01:23 uh,

01:23 on income and asset inequality and its

01:25 relationship to poverty reduction and growth,

01:28 land issues,

01:29 and capacity building,

01:30 uh,

01:30 for policy analysis and evaluation.

01:33 Finally,

01:33 Bob is a senior

01:34 senior economist in the trade and international integration team

01:39 whose research interests include state capture,

01:41 corruption,

01:42 and the distributional impacts of trade.

01:45 I'm really grateful and uh to welcome back

01:49 uh Carolina Sanchez as a discussant today.

01:52 Uh,

01:52 Carol is currently the director of strategy and operations

01:55 in Europe and Central Asia at the World Bank.

01:58 Prior to this assignment,

01:59 she was the global director of the poverty and Equity Global Practice,

02:03 in which she served as a discussant to one of our former previous uh

02:07 uh PRTs.

02:08 Uh,

02:08 before that assignment,

02:09 she was the practice manager for poverty and

02:11 equity in the Europe and Central Asia region.

02:14 Uh,

02:15 Carol has worked on operations,

02:17 policy advice,

02:17 and analytical activities in Eastern Europe,

02:19 Latin America,

02:20 and South Asia,

02:21 and she was a core team member,

02:24 uh,

02:24 of the team that worked on the 2012

02:27 World Development report Gender Equality and Development.

02:31 So I'll ask each speaker to speak for approximately 15 minutes,

02:34 after which we'll hear from Carol for 10 to 15 minutes.

02:38 Uh,

02:39 we'll conclude the session with Q&A from the audience.

02:42 Uh,

02:42 if you have a question,

02:43 please use the raised hand option in Webex or signal to me in the chat,

02:47 or raise your hand in the room,

02:48 go to the mic.

02:50 Um,

02:50 if you have a question,

02:51 and I will call on you.

02:52 Um,

02:53 if you follow me on YouTube,

02:55 uh,

02:55 please submit your question in the chat and that'll get,

02:58 uh,

02:58 relayed to me.

03:00 A reminder,

03:00 we are recording the session.

03:02 Um,

03:03 with that over to and I think we're gonna do,

03:06 uh,

03:07 Erhan,

03:08 Klaus,

03:08 and then Bob in that order and I will give you,

03:11 since the three of you and we need to keep on time,

03:13 I will give you uh some warning,

03:15 hope it's not too disruptive,

03:16 uh,

03:17 before 15 minutes,

03:18 OK?

03:18 OK.

03:19 Erhan,

03:19 over to you.

03:26 Uh,

03:27 thank you very much.

03:28 Uh,

03:29 I'm

03:31 Assuming that my slides are,

03:33 uh,

03:33 you can see online.

03:35 Um,

03:38 So this is a recent work,

03:40 uh,

03:40 with

03:41 I'm going to present our findings from a recent work with uh

03:45 Nicolas Gomez Par and Harun Unar.

03:48 Uh,

03:48 this study is about the impact of conflict in the eastern Ukraine,

03:52 uh,

03:53 between 2014 and 2019 before

03:56 the recent invasion.

03:58 So,

03:59 uh,

04:00 I just want to like

04:02 make sure that the,

04:03 the,

04:04 the,

04:04 the context is,

04:05 is,

04:05 is well understood because

04:07 the impact of the war will be much larger after the invasion.

04:10 That's what

04:11 you would expect.

04:13 Uh,

04:14 so what is the impact of conflict on welfare?

04:16 This is a very old question,

04:18 and we know that it has a very heavy toll on people,

04:21 and

04:22 we also know that it is difficult to account for non-monetary aspects

04:26 like death,

04:27 sexual violence,

04:28 erosion of social trust,

04:30 and

04:31 corruption in the institutions.

04:33 Those are all aspects which are difficult to keep track of.

04:37 And even if you want to look at the.

04:40 Uh,

04:40 regular or more conventional measures of impact,

04:44 GDP and other economic measures are often inaccurate because during

04:48 the time of war it's difficult to keep track of,

04:50 of these statistics.

04:52 So we will need a

04:54 more creative,

04:55 uh,

04:55 different approach to measure the impact rather than looking at the

04:59 conventional economic measures.

05:01 And the idea here is to use the

05:03 outflow migration data from the conflict areas.

05:06 So we are going to look at the,

05:08 uh.

05:10 Displaced people and try to figure out the welfare changes from that.

05:15 So this work is

05:17 Uh,

05:18 it's a follow up to our previous work with the with the same team.

05:22 Uh,

05:23 we started to work on this

05:25 type of topics with the refugees in Kenya and then

05:29 we

05:29 look at the impact of war in Syria

05:33 and

05:33 one thing that we learned from

05:35 that policy report is that.

05:38 It is very difficult

05:39 to explain

05:41 the outflow of migrants or refugees

05:45 from

05:46 by looking at just the economic

05:48 data.

05:48 So for example,

05:49 you are trying to look at the destruction of the

05:52 buildings,

05:52 and,

05:53 and if you just put them in a regular macro model,

05:56 that you will find that the impacts are not as large

05:59 as you would

06:00 predict

06:01 from what you observe from the refugee outflows.

06:05 So

06:06 that report.

06:08 We tried to explain the reasons and we

06:11 we concluded that it is because of the

06:14 institutional degradation and violence and other things,

06:17 so it was difficult to

06:19 assess the actual economic impact.

06:21 Then more recently we worked on

06:24 the recovery program in eastern Ukraine with the same team,

06:27 and this report gave us the context and

06:30 we

06:30 understood the environment better and we had access to data.

06:34 So let me just briefly explain

06:36 the context here.

06:39 Before the current invasion,

06:41 there was a conflict in the eastern part of Ukraine which is called Donbas.

06:46 Donbas means

06:47 Donetsk Basin.

06:48 It's a portmanteau of words,

06:50 and it is the center of Ukraine's declining mining industry,

06:54 and it was,

06:54 it used to be

06:56 one of the industrial centers in Ukraine,

06:58 and conflict started around 2014 after

07:02 then President.

07:04 Uh

07:05 was removed from the office by the Senate,

07:08 by the parliament,

07:09 and then separatists took control of the eastern parts of

07:13 Donbass,

07:14 and Donbass consists of two oblasts.

07:16 One of them is Donetsk and the other is Luhansk,

07:19 and separatists had the

07:22 control of the eastern part and the

07:24 western parts were controlled by the Ukrainian government.

07:28 And just to give you a context,

07:30 uh,

07:30 compared to the recent invasion,

07:32 this was a very low

07:34 intensity conflict,

07:36 or you cannot really compare it with the

07:39 other conflicts.

07:40 For example,

07:41 in Syria there were about

07:43 half a million people dead,

07:44 and

07:44 in this conflict

07:46 the numbers were much lower,

07:48 around

07:48 5000 people,

07:50 and then people could move easily during this time,

07:53 so it was relatively low intensity.

07:56 So,

07:56 but still we saw lots of people

08:00 moving away

08:01 from the conflict regions

08:03 and the idea is to use

08:05 these

08:06 outflows from these regions

08:08 to measure the economic impact of the conflict.

08:11 So how do we do it?

08:12 So we have a very simple intuition.

08:14 So

08:14 although this is.

08:17 This is very simple and illustrative exercise.

08:19 It really

08:21 shows the the the method,

08:22 how it works.

08:24 So

08:26 One of the,

08:27 sorry about that.

08:29 So one of the

08:31 main,

08:31 one of the

08:32 major methods that we use in migration literature

08:35 and also in the trade literature is to

08:38 regress outflows to income changes.

08:41 In this graph,

08:42 you see that on the x axis,

08:44 there are,

08:44 you see income changes.

08:46 So let's say

08:48 how much income changes from year to year in a particular region in Ukraine,

08:52 let's say that Donetsk.

08:54 And then on the y axis

08:55 you see the outflows from Donetsk.

08:58 So

08:59 this negative relationship shows that

09:01 as you increase the income,

09:03 the outflows from a particular region decreases.

09:07 So if there are more economic opportunities,

09:09 people are more likely to stay.

09:11 If the economic opportunities decline,

09:13 people leave.

09:14 So this is a very simple

09:16 idea from the migration literature.

09:19 And we actually estimate,

09:21 we could estimate this,

09:23 this.

09:25 This line

09:26 and we use it,

09:28 we use instrumental variables and we find that about 6% increase in income

09:32 in an oblast reduces outflows by 6%,

09:35 so it's about a

09:36 0.6 elasticity

09:39 and it's,

09:39 it is similar to other numbers that were found in

09:43 other research.

09:45 So,

09:45 so what is the idea?

09:46 The idea is really simple.

09:48 So you see this graph with outflows on the Y and income changes on the X axis,

09:53 just flip it.

09:54 Flip,

09:55 make the x axis outflows and Y axis income changes.

09:59 Then

10:00 you can map

10:01 outflows

10:03 to income changes.

10:06 So this

10:08 Reversion

10:11 Can tell us

10:12 the impact

10:14 of a conflict in a region and by looking at the outflows

10:17 we can predict

10:19 the

10:20 implied

10:21 welfare changes

10:22 from this graph.

10:23 So this is a very simple illustration.

10:25 I'll show you a more

10:27 accurate picture later on

10:30 and we can try to answer this question.

10:32 Assume that migration probability increased by 700%.

10:36 So this is how much the

10:37 outflows increase in during the during the conflict

10:40 then what does it say about welfare?

10:43 So this is how are we going,

10:45 how we are going to

10:46 analyze the question.

10:48 So this basic idea is a

10:50 is an old idea.

10:52 It's well established in the literature.

10:54 Started with Hosam Miller,

10:55 which is used for econometric,

10:57 as an econometric tool,

10:59 but we used it in a.

11:00 In a paper,

11:02 uh,

11:02 about 10 years ago,

11:04 uh,

11:04 to calculate

11:06 the.

11:08 The role of mobility

11:10 in workers' welfare

11:12 in a paper and also in trade it's also

11:15 well understood,

11:16 uh,

11:16 for example,

11:17 you can calculate the gains from trade by looking at the trade flows.

11:20 That's a paper by Arcolakis Kosino and Rodriguez Clare.

11:24 So this is well understood,

11:25 but it is

11:27 not,

11:28 uh,

11:28 it is

11:29 well established,

11:30 but it is not

11:32 really popular in the literature,

11:33 so we don't know that many papers actually trying to do.

11:37 Something like this,

11:38 so the.

11:40 The nice thing about this approach that

11:43 I'm going to present is that it is very general.

11:45 There is a model.

11:47 Uh,

11:48 behind it,

11:48 but it's not a black box.

11:49 It has almost no assumptions.

11:52 You can just

11:53 play with the parameters and

11:54 make it static or dynamic.

11:56 You can,

11:57 uh.

12:00 You can make it perfect foresight or agnostic

12:03 about expectation formation.

12:04 You can make it risk averse,

12:06 risk neutral at different time preferences.

12:08 So

12:09 the numbers that I'm going to present

12:11 will be

12:13 the welfare impact

12:15 as

12:16 predicted by the residents.

12:18 So we don't need to understand how they make their decisions.

12:22 So

12:23 we.

12:24 We just need to

12:25 assume that they are not making systematic errors,

12:28 that is rational,

12:30 and we don't know how they form their expectations.

12:33 OK,

12:34 so,

12:34 and it is so general,

12:36 it would give us the

12:38 setups that are popular in the literature,

12:40 so you can play with the parameters you can get,

12:42 for example,

12:42 Eaton Quorum model or

12:44 uh Stephen Redding's model,

12:45 so.

12:47 It,

12:48 it basically,

12:49 uh,

12:51 can be adjusted,

12:52 so our method can be adjusted to

12:54 almost any discrete choice model in the literature.

12:58 OK,

12:58 so

12:59 I'm just going to present the general idea now.

13:03 So we have a model

13:04 pretty much summarized by this

13:06 chart.

13:08 Uh,

13:09 we have a,

13:09 we have residents in Donetsk,

13:11 let's say,

13:12 and they have options to move,

13:13 so they can move to,

13:14 let's say Kiev City,

13:16 Chernihiv,

13:16 Lviv,

13:16 or Poland.

13:19 And

13:21 When they make their choice,

13:22 we don't assume if they make it based on a current value or future value or

13:28 how do they assess the impact.

13:29 Are they risk neutral or not,

13:31 so we don't assume anything about that.

13:33 So if you look at the

13:35 numbers before and after the conflict,

13:37 for example,

13:37 in the Kiev city,

13:38 you will see that

13:40 the migration probability to Kiev city per year

13:44 increased from 0.2%

13:46 to 2.2%. That's a 10 times increase.

13:50 So it is similar numbers for different

13:52 oblasts within the Ukraine,

13:54 and

13:54 unfortunately we don't have data,

13:57 for example,

13:57 for those who are going to Poland.

14:00 And

14:00 this method does not require knowing all the flaws.

14:03 As long as we have some flaws,

14:06 we can calculate the impact,

14:08 OK?

14:09 So here is the.

14:12 More detail on the same idea.

14:14 So

14:15 we have 3,

14:16 let's say oblasts,

14:18 and we see that the migration probabilities increase from

14:21 10 times to 5 times.

14:24 The probability of going to Kiev city increased 10 times to Chernihiv 5 times.

14:29 And what does it mean?

14:30 That means that utility

14:32 of staying in Donetsk is decreasing.

14:36 So you could say,

14:37 OK,

14:38 how do you know that utility

14:40 to going to Lviv is not increasing,

14:42 so they might be from Lviv they might be going to Poland.

14:46 Right,

14:46 so,

14:47 uh,

14:48 we have,

14:49 uh,

14:49 robustness tests and we calculate it using different,

14:53 uh,

14:53 corridors and

14:54 our results are very robust,

14:56 so we can

14:57 take care of these type of concerns

14:59 and we can just ignore,

15:00 for example,

15:01 if you think that there's a problem with Tel Liv,

15:03 you can just ignore that corridor and calculate the numbers using other,

15:06 other corridors.

15:07 So 7 times outflows means

15:10 a huge decline

15:12 in

15:12 the utility in Donetsk.

15:14 So.

15:15 The next question is what would be

15:18 the decline in income

15:21 to make the residents of Donbas as worse off as the conflict,

15:25 so we are trying to find this number.

15:29 Because since our calculations are based on utility,

15:32 it's not really,

15:33 we cannot really understand what does it mean for

15:36 the workers' uh residents' income without putting it into

15:40 a utility function.

15:42 So.

15:44 Uh

15:45 We invert the utility function more or less,

15:48 and we find that numbers for Donetsk

15:50 and Luhansk are similar and precisely estimated.

15:53 The standards errors are very small,

15:55 and

15:56 we just want to emphasize that

15:58 we don't take the impact.

16:01 Ukraine-wide impact into account.

16:04 So it could be the case that because of conflict,

16:06 maybe Ukraine is spending so much money

16:09 and so much effort

16:11 on the conflict.

16:11 The general GDP might be declining.

16:13 So we don't account for that.

16:15 So that's very important

16:16 and the exact impact depends on the structure of the utility function because

16:21 we are mapping

16:22 the income to utility.

16:23 If it's a risk averse individual,

16:25 it will be a utility function concave.

16:28 It will mean a different

16:30 income impact compared to a risk neutral

16:32 agent,

16:33 which would have a linear utility function.

16:35 And also it depends on

16:37 the

16:38 time discount.

16:40 So if you think that

16:41 people are deciding based on instantaneous shocks like current changes or

16:46 whether they are taking the future into account,

16:48 you'll get different results.

16:49 So we have

16:50 all these parameters covered,

16:52 we take them from the literature and

16:54 try different

16:55 numbers,

16:55 and we have a general picture.

16:58 So

16:59 if the losses are amortized for 10 years,

17:03 we find that with the risk averse

17:05 agents,

17:06 don't loss is equal to

17:08 31% to 40% of income for 10 years.

17:13 And

17:14 I think it is for me it's easier to.

17:19 Understand the numbers if they are

17:21 calculated as lifetime loss

17:24 if the agents are risk averse.

17:26 The loss is equal to 9% to 8%.

17:30 Of lifetime income.

17:32 So

17:33 if

17:33 we assume that the agents are risk averse,

17:36 they are losing about 10% of their income lifetime.

17:39 And if the agents are

17:41 risk neutral,

17:42 the loss is between 7% to 25% of their lifetime income.

17:46 So the income

17:48 loss,

17:48 the equivalent income loss that would make the residents as worse as the conflict

17:53 are huge,

17:54 even before

17:55 the

17:56 recent invasions.

17:58 OK,

17:59 so,

18:00 uh,

18:01 I would like to conclude,

18:02 uh,

18:03 we just showed that welfare impacts of

18:05 conflict can be estimated from migration outflows.

18:08 We need to have

18:09 a migration elastic parameter properly estimated using

18:13 instrumental

18:14 uh variables,

18:15 and we need to see the migration outflows before and after the conflict,

18:20 but we don't need to see these outflows for all corridors.

18:23 And the conflict in eastern Ukraine before the recent invasion

18:27 significantly reduced the welfare.

18:29 It is

18:31 between 7% to 25% of their lifetime income.

18:35 OK,

18:35 thank you.

18:38 Thanks,

18:39 Johan.

18:39 Um,

18:40 Carol,

18:40 I hope it's OK if we go just to the next one and then we'll,

18:43 we'll bring you in after the three short presentations.

18:45 Thank you.

18:48 Uh,

18:48 over to you,

18:49 Klaus.

18:56 OK,

18:56 thank you,

18:57 thank you very much.

18:58 Uh,

18:58 I'll go to the actual conflict and uh

19:02 talk a little bit about the impact on the agricultural sector,

19:05 and this is a paper that draws on the ideas of many people,

19:08 as you have seen.

19:09 I think I have 3 objectives.

19:11 The first one,

19:12 I think,

19:12 as Erhan mentioned,

19:13 we need data,

19:14 so I will demonstrate the use of imagery

19:17 to assess the conflict and its impact on area

19:20 grown at village level in near real time.

19:23 Second,

19:23 I link that to survey data to assess the

19:26 welfare and distributional aspects and the scope for intervention,

19:30 and we then try to illustrate how a digital

19:33 farmer registry and linked to administrative data can complement that

19:37 to target,

19:38 deliver,

19:39 and also evaluate agricultural support quickly and transparently,

19:43 and I hope that I will be able to do that in 15 minutes.

19:47 So

19:48 that of course one issue is the data.

19:50 This is a high resolution image on the craters that are created by

19:57 ordnance.

19:58 If we look at that with freely available imagery,

20:01 we have three types of damages.

20:04 One is burns,

20:05 and so here you see the time

20:07 time series of 3 sets of imagery.

20:10 In the middle one you see where the fire is actually burning.

20:13 And then the burned area on the right hand side,

20:16 the same,

20:16 this is also burns.

20:18 The second type of issue is that whatever heavy

20:23 vehicles actually drive on your fields,

20:25 and the third type is that you have this ordnance and artillery fire.

20:30 This has all been done by a local university.

20:34 Classification in 2 means using Sentinel 2 freely available imagery

20:40 for the entire period.

20:42 And so the data that we got is here

20:45 we compared that with open source data that the ministry is making available on the

20:51 At village council levels,

20:53 I think all of this data is aggregated to 10,500 village councils.

20:58 Clearly what is evident here is that our data,

21:01 I mean,

21:02 so I think the first one is the ministry data.

21:04 It's much higher than what we have,

21:07 of course that is expected because you don't,

21:10 you may have conflicts in urban areas that don't filter

21:13 down to the rural areas or they don't cause field damage

21:16 and

21:17 it's also very weakly correlated.

21:19 We also compared that with the

21:23 ACL data,

21:23 which is the standard of conflict data globally.

21:26 On the picture here,

21:28 I think the Alet are the

21:30 green dots,

21:31 and clearly what is our data is both,

21:35 I think,

21:35 more granular.

21:37 It illustrates the

21:39 severity of the damage better and of course Alet is pushed,

21:43 pulled into the next village or the next settlement,

21:46 so that's why we have the settlement boundaries.

21:48 So I think the location is also less precise.

21:50 Than what we have,

21:52 then the second source of data is the national crop

21:54 classification map that we have been doing already before,

21:58 and that I think it links with what Iran,

22:00 I think that is for 4 years available nationally,

22:04 and the colors are different crops.

22:06 This has been done completely based on remote sensing,

22:09 no data from the government at all,

22:12 3.3 million fields based on sentinel imagery.

22:16 And of course the interesting part,

22:18 and I will come to that a little bit later,

22:20 is that we can link that to the cadaster to get

22:23 any farmers so we can identify from the cadaster the farms,

22:27 the parcels that any farmer cultivates

22:30 so we know their crop history for the last 4 years,

22:34 which is something that is quite interesting for the banks,

22:36 of course,

22:37 because if you have non-banked people who

22:40 At least you can see what they grew and also you can

22:43 get some estimate of the yields based on NDVI and others,

22:46 and I show that

22:47 you can also of course automate crop insurance

22:50 and that provides a basis for carbon credits.

22:53 So I think there are quite a lot of

22:56 applications and of course it's also

22:57 interesting for village councils to actually plan

23:00 in terms of reconstruction

23:03 and putting these data together,

23:04 I think this is just to frighten you.

23:08 What we get is that

23:10 essentially I think we have for the 40

23:16 that compared to other what they call consensus estimates

23:18 that are very weakly documented such as USDA.

23:21 Uh,

23:21 the area impact that we see is much less,

23:25 um,

23:26 but we see clear differences between,

23:28 so I think the panel A is the national million hectares,

23:31 so in 22

23:32 we have 8.3 and 17 million,

23:34 8.3 winter crops,

23:36 17 million summer crops.

23:38 Which is a little bit 11 or 5% less than the national average for the 4 years before,

23:44 for the three years before,

23:46 but at the village council level,

23:47 of course there is a clear difference,

23:50 and so we have both the crop damage,

23:52 the villages with crop damage,

23:54 and

23:55 the villages where there is any conflict reported,

23:57 and it shows that our data is actually

24:00 more precise.

24:01 Um,

24:02 but of course,

24:03 and I think then of course since we are talking agriculture,

24:06 we also need to take the climate into account.

24:08 This is only to show that 22 was a very dry year,

24:12 um,

24:13 and I don't want to bother you with GDDs

24:15 and all these things that the agronomists deal with

24:18 in terms of the methodology,

24:20 what we estimate is the area cultivated with winter or summer crop.

24:24 We also estimate yields for the winter crops,

24:27 but that I don't want to cover here.

24:29 We have a conflict indicator which is this one here,

24:33 so this is the

24:35 area damaged that will give us the direct conflict effect,

24:39 and we have a set of that X is a village that is

24:43 GDD rain plant in different seasons and higher growing higher order terms.

24:48 And then we have a time dummy and under the assumption that

24:52 with village fixed effects and our climatic variables we control for everything

24:56 that will give us the macro impact of the conflict.

24:59 And of course what we can then do is we can

25:03 simulate this with and without the macro effect or

25:06 with different putting different weather variables in there.

25:10 And if we do that,

25:11 and so I think that is the

25:14 and aggregate that in whatever ways we want to use this.

25:18 So just to show you the regressions,

25:19 I think there's nothing really extraordinary there,

25:22 but we see both for the winter crops,

25:24 both very significant impacts of the direct damage.

25:28 In terms of the conflict indicator,

25:31 open source data as well,

25:33 a very negative,

25:34 and we see a very negative year effect which all come together.

25:38 And of course for the summer crops we see the same thing.

25:41 I think for the summer crops we can distinguish,

25:43 of course the winter crops were planted before the conflict started,

25:47 so

25:48 the area affected,

25:49 the direct conflict effect on the area should be less.

25:53 Um,

25:53 and we also,

25:55 and I think an interesting part that is here is that the winter crop area,

25:59 there's actually some compensation

26:01 for

26:03 catching up in terms of where winter crop was either destroyed or failed.

26:09 People started growing summer crops and of course

26:10 that testifies to the resilience of the sector.

26:14 In terms of the predicted areas,

26:16 I think this is just then plugging in these estimates and

26:21 extrapolating.

26:22 So I think we find if there would have been no macro and no conflict,

26:26 we would have been 9 million

26:28 hectares of winter crop.

26:30 The conflict and macro effect is about slightly 9.5%,

26:34 and we can of course separate this out in terms

26:37 of both the net conflict and the macro effect separately.

26:41 I think we have similar figures here for the

26:44 or a slightly higher effect,

26:47 13% for the total

26:50 conflict effect

26:52 in

26:53 for the summer crops,

26:54 and of course we can distinguish that and I think of course one

26:57 interesting part is that we can actually

26:59 distinguish areas that are occupied by Russia

27:02 versus areas that are in the Ukraine proper.

27:07 There are a couple of extensions which I will not bother you.

27:09 Instead,

27:10 what I will do is go briefly into some

27:13 preliminary evidence from a survey that we have been doing

27:19 to actually get some of the welfare and distributional effects,

27:22 2500 farms,

27:23 the phone survey,

27:24 national coverage,

27:26 and different size strata so we can

27:30 look at differences across the farm size spectrum.

27:33 Um,

27:33 I'll show you three slides.

27:35 The first one is on the welfare.

27:37 What we see very clearly is a dramatic drop in terms of people's perspective from,

27:43 so I think we asked them a ladder of life between 1 to 10,

27:45 how do you judge your personal and the country's situation?

27:49 Uh,

27:49 it's particularly bad in the east and in the center,

27:53 and of the west,

27:55 surprisingly we went from the,

27:57 from the worst to actually being the best,

28:01 uh,

28:01 growth best perspectives.

28:03 Second,

28:03 but what is quite interesting is that the

28:06 country continues to function surprisingly well actually.

28:09 Social assistance increased or the share of people

28:13 getting,

28:14 and I think it was actually targeted quite well to the smaller farmers,

28:18 and also non-agricultural income also continues to be paid,

28:23 but of course the wars resulted in significant damage to

28:27 land and structures which is about equal to the.

28:31 What we get from the imagery in the east and the north,

28:33 but that also is geographically concentrated

28:36 in terms of the product.

28:38 But of course what we see,

28:39 so

28:40 if we look at the changes in area,

28:43 we get about 12% from the survey data,

28:45 which is quite close to what we get from our imagery analysis,

28:48 which is of course

28:50 gives us some comfort.

28:52 Interestingly,

28:53 that is all concentrated in the large farms,

28:55 all of the small guys.

28:57 are actually cultivating the same area,

29:00 but we see about 20% in terms of drop of physical yields,

29:05 and we see a very dramatic drop in terms of market integration.

29:10 I think we used wheat because that would have been marketed by now,

29:13 so clearly that is

29:15 all of the channels of exporting despite the grain deal and whatever.

29:19 It filters down significantly to the farm level,

29:23 which of course means that prices also have been dropped,

29:26 dropping significantly,

29:28 and that

29:29 of course that reinforces the pre-existing

29:32 differences across the farm size groups.

29:35 And of course I don't want to go into profits and production functions here,

29:39 but just

29:40 how to,

29:41 how does that actually link then to

29:43 to perspectives and the longer term outlook.

29:47 Interestingly enough,

29:48 we expected a lot of people actually willing to get out

29:52 like what Erhan said.

29:54 I think of the farm,

29:55 it seems that agricultural fundamentals are still very strong.

30:00 Only 4% are ready to sell the land and at a price well above what is the market price,

30:06 almost 80%.

30:08 And if you take out some of the small farms who are probably going out of farming,

30:12 in any case,

30:13 more than 80%

30:15 are willing to buy land and with a willingness to pay

30:18 that is in line with pre-war prices.

30:22 So that is quite interesting.

30:24 Also,

30:24 we see,

30:25 um,

30:26 and then of course I think some

30:28 in terms of background,

30:29 the World Bank has been pushing very hard for

30:32 opening of land sales markets in 2021.

30:35 That was done in July

30:37 2021,

30:38 just before,

30:39 so almost just before the war started.

30:41 What we see is that there is all the credit except for the smallest farm sized group,

30:47 which is probably going to consumption is going to working capital,

30:50 so there is no long term credit market at all.

30:53 Access to credit is extremely size biased.

30:56 It's the big guys

30:58 who are getting that,

30:59 and they're also paying much less interest

31:01 because the government is subsidizing this interest.

31:04 So of course that means that the mechanism in which the government

31:09 support is being distributed.

31:11 Invariably means,

31:13 I mean,

31:13 you need to get a loan and then the bank asks the government to reimburse

31:18 for the interest on that loan.

31:19 Of course that means none of the guys who are

31:21 not credit worthy will ever get any access to that,

31:23 and that is something that we are definitely we are discussing with the government

31:27 to actually change that with the land market and

31:30 with being able to use land as a collateral.

31:33 Actually that is,

31:34 and especially given that we see the high demand for borrowing.

31:38 It's definitely something that is important,

31:40 but of course what is interesting is that borrowing is not the only constraint.

31:45 I think we asked farmers what they would actually the government want to do.

31:50 And the most the top priority was to

31:52 regulate the input prices because there is very little

31:55 transparency and they're being ripped off.

31:59 So that brings me to the last point,

32:01 and I hope I still have 3 minutes left

32:04 to do that.

32:05 So the government response,

32:07 one of the immediate government responses with support from the EU

32:11 was to establish a 50 million cash grant scheme.

32:15 Establishing actually from scratch what they call a state agrarian registry,

32:19 which

32:20 was established in August,

32:22 which essentially links to all of the registries both to the national ID system

32:27 as well as to the

32:29 registry of rights and the cadaster

32:31 validates automatically if a farmer registers whether they

32:35 actually have the land registered in their name.

32:37 And then uses a cutoff point in terms of 120 hectares

32:42 to establish eligibility and of course the 120 hectares needs to be

32:46 in outside the conflict affected areas or outside the Russian territory

32:50 to check eligibility and using the crop map that I showed you earlier to

32:54 see whether that land was actually cultivated or not because they only want to give

32:59 the money to farmers that actually cultivated their land.

33:03 Surprisingly enough,

33:04 I think the ministry told us nobody will take

33:06 that thing and it will be a complete disaster.

33:10 There was that whole program was completely dispersed within 10 weeks

33:15 and by October,

33:16 people actually received their grant.

33:19 Interestingly enough,

33:19 we have about 55.

33:21 So of course that lends itself to doing some evaluation there

33:25 and it was completely transparent and I think we actually had a

33:30 Event yesterday with the minister where they was,

33:33 I think the bombs were flying over

33:35 them and they were in the bunker and I think they were quite happy about that.

33:40 Of course what and unfortunately due to the electricity shortages,

33:44 I cannot present you results already.

33:47 But we hope that in the next couple of weeks we will get them,

33:49 and of course we can then treat the parcels by treated and untreated farmers

33:54 to see whether they plant it or not.

33:56 We just have the first crop maps for the winter crop of the next 23 seasons,

34:02 and of course we can do panel estimation and compare to neighboring farms to see.

34:07 How to separate war from structural effects,

34:10 so I think that could be quite interesting and

34:12 of course that could also then help to inform

34:14 future policies in this area.

34:17 And of course,

34:18 given that we saw significant

34:21 imperfections in input markets as well and demand for technical assistance,

34:25 of course that means that definitely and the government also sees it

34:29 that way that this state registry could evolve into a central digital hub

34:34 for the reconstruction in agriculture that can.

34:36 And I think the banks are already asking us to pilot with that

34:41 access both state support and also

34:44 other

34:45 types of support or credit processing because of course for them

34:49 that provides a lot of

34:51 potential of checking their customers.

34:53 I think the one thing that is being discussed right now is access to the tax,

34:57 to the past tax

34:59 tax forms and statistical forms,

35:01 and if the banks have that,

35:02 I think that will be.

35:04 Very,

35:05 very positive.

35:06 So I think to conclude,

35:08 free satellite imagery provides an

35:12 important basis for policy decisions in conflict situations

35:16 because otherwise it's very difficult to go out into the field and

35:20 and collect data and it can be done very quickly.

35:23 But of course

35:25 getting distributional and welfare effects will still

35:28 require to get some additional information there.

35:31 And

35:32 I think what we see from the data that I've

35:34 shown you is that the war exacerbates the pre-existing inequalities

35:40 and that improving capital market and other

35:42 market functioning could actually provide an opportunity

35:46 to overcome this and of course that's where the link to digital registries and

35:52 both provides an opportunity for program design and implementation,

35:56 but also for targeting.

35:58 And evaluation and so I think for example,

36:01 one thing I mean

36:03 from the cases that are actually doubtful

36:06 in terms of cultivation,

36:07 of course we can use them for training data

36:09 to improve the predictions of the crop models.

36:12 So I think there's a lot of potential synergies

36:15 and obviously that could also provide opportunities

36:17 for future bank operations and analytical support,

36:20 which is something which we are discussing with our operational colleagues.

36:24 Thank you.

36:27 Thanks,

36:28 Kaus.

36:28 Obviously a very different uh

36:30 perspective and now we have uh even a third different perspective,

36:34 uh,

36:34 over to you,

36:35 Bob.

36:46 OK.

36:48 Thanks,

36:48 uh,

36:48 very much,

36:49 and,

36:49 uh,

36:50 thanks for having me.

36:51 So,

36:51 uh,

36:51 I think Claus's presentation leads naturally into my presentation which about is,

36:55 is about

36:56 the impact of,

36:58 uh,

36:58 the food price inflation that is induced by the war

37:01 on household welfare in developing countries.

37:03 So this is joint work with Erhan,

37:05 uh,

37:06 Guido,

37:07 and Guillermo Falcone and also Paula is here,

37:10 uh,

37:10 who's helped us,

37:11 uh,

37:11 a lot.

37:15 So,

37:16 Immediately after the onset of the of the war,

37:19 food prices spiked

37:21 quite dramatically.

37:22 So for instance,

37:23 the price of corn

37:24 in March

37:25 was 53% higher than it was in January,

37:29 and the price of,

37:29 uh,

37:31 sorry,

37:31 the price of wheat was 53% higher.

37:32 The price of corn was 23% higher.

37:35 And that's

37:36 because Ukraine and Russia are very important agricultural suppliers,

37:39 so they supply roughly 25%

37:41 of the world's wheat exports.

37:43 Um,

37:44 Russia is also very important,

37:46 in fact,

37:46 the most important exporter of fertilizer,

37:48 and Ukraine,

37:50 uh,

37:50 accounts for an important share of,

37:52 of oil seeds.

37:53 And so in this presentation I want to focus on

37:56 what the implications

37:57 of sort of this this big shock are

38:00 for

38:00 households in developing countries.

38:02 And in the first part I'm gonna take these price changes

38:05 as exogenous.

38:06 In the second part,

38:08 we will actually have a model

38:09 to simulate some of the impacts in which

38:11 we endogen endogenize some of these price changes.

38:16 So how do price changes impact households?

38:18 Well,

38:19 the impacts of course depend a lot

38:21 on

38:22 your consumption portfolios.

38:24 And you know how you earn your living

38:27 so as consumers

38:29 higher prices are bad news.

38:31 You have to pay more

38:32 um

38:33 for what you were consuming.

38:36 As

38:37 an income earner,

38:37 higher prices are good news.

38:39 So if you're a farmer,

38:40 uh,

38:41 or you're working in the agricultural sector,

38:43 these higher food prices could in fact

38:45 benefit you.

38:46 And so

38:47 for any given household,

38:48 sort of the net effect

38:49 of course depends on its

38:52 consumption and income portfolios,

38:53 at least in the short run

38:54 if we do not allow

38:56 adjustment

38:57 in the longer term,

38:58 households are gonna adjust their consumption

39:02 and production patterns

39:04 that's gonna impact trade.

39:05 And so

39:06 that will modulate the impacts that we're going to see.

39:10 So it's very important if you wanna analyze these price impacts

39:13 is knowing exactly

39:15 what households consume

39:16 and how they earn a living.

39:18 Unfortunately,

39:19 as a byproduct

39:20 of an

39:21 sort of earlier project that,

39:22 uh,

39:23 Aaron Guido and I have been working for

39:24 on for

39:26 now nearly a decade.

39:28 We've put together

39:30 Uh,

39:30 household survey data sets.

39:33 With extremely detailed price

39:36 information.

39:37 Uh,

39:39 for like a very sort of granular set of

39:42 products,

39:43 more than 53 products.

39:45 For

39:46 53 developing countries

39:48 and the Ukraine.

39:50 Uh,

39:51 basically for all low income countries for which we could get these data,

39:54 so the

39:55 requirement for inclusion in these data is that

39:59 the data have to be representative at the national level

40:01 and they have to cover

40:03 simultaneously both consumption decisions

40:05 and income decisions

40:07 because that allows us then to estimate,

40:09 you know,

40:10 the impact,

40:11 uh,

40:12 on any given households

40:13 and so these data are publicly available you can download them,

40:16 uh,

40:17 directly.

40:17 Here's the,

40:18 the link.

40:19 And so

40:20 what we learned from these data,

40:22 uh,

40:22 which is something you probably already know,

40:24 is that

40:25 poorer households tend to spend a greater share of their budget

40:28 on food items.

40:29 And that

40:30 means that they're more exposed

40:32 to food price inflation.

40:34 So just to give an example,

40:35 the plots here show you

40:38 how much they spend on wheat and corn respectively

40:41 with red sort of their expenditure shares,

40:44 and you can see that these are downward sloping

40:47 and then sort of like the,

40:48 the little green line at the bottom

40:50 is the income

40:52 share,

40:52 so how much income they earn

40:53 so poor households both spend more

40:56 on,

40:56 on,

40:56 on wheat.

40:57 And earn more from from wheat,

41:00 but

41:01 in aggregate,

41:01 uh.

41:03 The sort of their net budget share.

41:05 Decreases uh as a function of their income and that leaves them more exposed

41:09 similarly for for for corn.

41:11 And so if we simulate the impact

41:14 of

41:15 wheat and corn price

41:17 increases

41:18 on

41:19 real household incomes,

41:20 not allowing for any adjustments,

41:22 so

41:23 these are first order short term impacts.

41:26 Then what we see is that the average loss across these 53 developing countries

41:30 is roughly 2%,

41:32 but it's the poor that really suffered the brunt of this,

41:34 so they see their incomes decline much more on average

41:38 than than richer households.

41:40 That is not to say that no households gain.

41:42 So

41:42 in this bottom,

41:43 uh,

41:44 quantile

41:45 there are some households,

41:46 notably farmers,

41:48 people who produce these products,

41:50 that,

41:50 that will gain,

41:51 but on average

41:52 this impact is,

41:53 is very,

41:53 very negative.

41:54 And so on the whole,

41:56 food pliers inflation tends to erode real incomes and exacerbate

42:00 inequality.

42:02 Now of course you know these are results that are representative for

42:05 uh

42:06 basically.

42:07 Low income countries,

42:09 but you know as an

42:10 individual staff member you may be interested in your own country.

42:14 So

42:14 what we have done or really what Erhan has done

42:16 is

42:17 uh built

42:19 uh an online tool

42:20 that allows you

42:22 to do your own analysis to directly feed these price changes,

42:25 uh,

42:26 into,

42:27 uh,

42:28 this platform

42:30 and then

42:30 the website immediately gives you a sort of average welfare

42:34 effects.

42:34 So here's an example for Georgia.

42:36 Simulating sort of the very price sort of changes that

42:39 uh I just showed you

42:40 and and showing how they impact the distribution of of income.

42:44 So I,

42:44 I,

42:44 I hope that this is useful and I think what's neat about this is

42:47 that even though sort of we developed this sort of with the Ukraine war

42:50 in mind,

42:51 in principle

42:52 you can use this tool for any type of analysis that is going to impact prices.

42:56 So if you think about VAT reforms or other types of shocks

43:00 or subsidies,

43:01 uh,

43:01 I think this tool could be a very useful

43:03 starting point.

43:05 And of course the data are also publicly available.

43:07 So

43:07 if you don't like sort of what we've done or you want to make additional assumptions,

43:10 do more complex modeling,

43:12 it's all

43:13 possible.

43:14 So now I want to

43:15 talk a little bit about our own modeling

43:17 because one of the reasons why we see these price

43:19 spikes is precisely because of supply disruptions that sort of Klaus

43:23 uh talked about,

43:24 but also because many countries

43:26 responded to the war

43:28 by imposing bans.

43:29 So Russia

43:30 banned uh a lot of its exports of wheat,

43:33 corn,

43:34 fertilizers,

43:34 oil seeds,

43:35 among others,

43:36 and Ukraine

43:37 trade initially was sort of stifled completely,

43:39 but it also imposed bans.

43:41 Uh,

43:42 on its own exports

43:43 and then over time

43:44 we,

43:45 uh,

43:46 as sort of the conflict progressed,

43:47 other countries started to

43:49 respond.

43:50 So we also saw export bans,

43:51 for instance,

43:51 in Georgia,

43:52 Ghana,

43:53 India,

43:54 Moldova,

43:54 Kazakhstan,

43:55 and Kyrgyzstan.

43:56 Maybe not all of these are,

43:58 uh.

43:59 Exclusively motivated by the war,

44:02 uh,

44:03 because remember that the food prices are already

44:04 high because we're coming off of COVID,

44:07 um.

44:08 And perhaps because of climate change,

44:10 but they,

44:10 you know,

44:10 definitely sort of coincided sort of with the

44:13 evolution of this conflict.

44:15 So

44:16 To,

44:17 uh,

44:17 take these bans seriously and simulate their impact and also to simulate,

44:21 you know,

44:21 potential impacts of additional bans,

44:23 we developed,

44:24 uh,

44:25 a state of the art trade model

44:27 where the innovation is that we allow for heterogeneous

44:29 households and adjustments.

44:31 So,

44:31 so what's really new here relative sort of to what's out there in the literature

44:35 is that households are allowed to make supply and land allocation decisions.

44:39 And um

44:41 That's an innovation

44:42 and so

44:43 into this,

44:44 uh,

44:44 model we feed two types of data we use again,

44:47 uh,

44:48 our household impacts of tariff database to retrieve households income

44:53 and consumption shares for different products

44:55 and then we use trade data from the

44:56 international trade and production database for estimation.

44:59 And then we run two scenarios,

45:01 the baseline scenario.

45:03 It's simply that Russia bans export of a certain number of key commodities wheat,

45:08 corn,

45:09 fertilizer,

45:10 sugar,

45:10 and oil seeds.

45:12 And that Ukraine is

45:14 completely isolated in terms of its agricultural trade.

45:17 And then

45:18 in the second scenario we model the impact of retaliation.

45:22 So this is other countries.

45:24 That we know have imposed export restrictions,

45:27 uh,

45:27 uh,

45:28 imposing these bans.

45:30 So what are the results?

45:31 Well,

45:31 as you might expect,

45:33 the extent to which

45:35 like your food prices are gonna increase

45:38 is gonna be

45:39 very strongly correlated with how much you were trading

45:42 with the Ukraine,

45:44 uh,

45:44 and Russia before the war

45:45 and in particular the more you import for

45:48 from the Ukraine

45:49 and Russia,

45:49 the higher

45:51 your

45:52 your prices are gonna be.

45:53 So

45:53 in countries like Armenia and Georgia we see really dramatic price increases

45:58 and.

45:59 The this,

46:00 these price increases increases typically erode

46:03 welfare,

46:04 so,

46:04 so the bigger the price shock,

46:06 the more real income

46:07 you lose.

46:09 And

46:13 Those sort of

46:14 negative impacts are particularly pronounced for the poor.

46:17 So if we look at sort of the average welfare

46:20 of the top.

46:22 25% and compare that to the bottom

46:24 25%,

46:25 you can clearly see.

46:28 The poorer households

46:29 lose more,

46:30 which is

46:32 of course because

46:33 they spend a bigger share of their

46:35 budgets

46:36 on on food.

46:39 But I think what's needed is sort of like a standard trade model wouldn't give you.

46:43 These predictions

46:44 So

46:45 that is

46:46 new here.

46:48 So of course

46:49 this map shows you sort of the the average impacts

46:52 uh

46:53 by baseline scenario and

46:55 as you can see like the overwhelming majority of countries lose

46:59 and some countries like Mongolia and Armenia lose quite a lot.

47:02 On average they lose

47:03 2%.

47:05 There are also a few countries

47:06 that uh

47:07 gain a little bit.

47:09 So,

47:10 uh,

47:10 Pakistan and Iraq,

47:11 uh,

47:12 they gain.

47:13 Why?

47:13 Because they potentially can now ramp up their exports.

47:17 Then when we all

47:19 model the impact of sort of the additional

47:21 uh

47:22 export bans imposed by developing countries themselves,

47:24 you can see that these impacts,

47:26 these welfare losses.

47:28 Tend to get aggravated.

47:30 So in this scenario,

47:31 average welfare drops by 2.2% points.

47:37 And

47:37 that suggests or this that this retaliatory protectionism,

47:40 even if

47:41 it could be in your own interest.

47:44 Tends to amplify

47:45 The adverse effect of of this crisis and that's something that we believe should be

47:51 avoided.

47:52 So

47:52 to conclude,

47:53 uh,

47:54 this war induced food price inflation

47:56 hurts most developing countries.

47:58 I mean some gain,

47:59 but they only gain a little bit.

48:01 The impacts vary quite dramatically across

48:03 developing countries and and depend a lot

48:06 on your initial trade exposure.

48:10 Food price inflation is disequalizing

48:13 the poor suffer the most,

48:15 uh,

48:15 from this,

48:16 and retaliate protectionism

48:18 is making things worse

48:20 and therefore

48:21 should ideally be avoided.

48:23 And to end I also

48:25 really wanna highlight that sort of

48:27 this database that we've put together.

48:29 I really hope you will find it useful

48:31 and we also have tools that you can use to

48:33 to analyze the impacts

48:34 on the countries you're working on.

48:36 Thanks very much.

48:41 Thanks,

48:41 Bob.

48:42 Um,

48:42 clearly a running theme of exacerbation of inequality and,

48:46 and,

48:46 and hurting the poor.

48:48 Um,

48:48 with that,

48:49 let's turn over to,

48:50 to Carol,

48:51 um,

48:52 Uh,

48:52 for her reactions and comments and,

48:54 and,

48:55 you know,

48:55 both an apology and a thank you apology,

48:57 you know,

48:58 you got 33 very different

49:01 sets of analysis here to,

49:02 to,

49:03 uh,

49:03 to react to,

49:04 uh,

49:04 and thank you for taking that on.

49:06 Over to you,

49:06 Carol.

49:08 Well,

49:09 thank you Deonna,

49:10 thank you everybody for inviting me.

49:12 Uh,

49:12 it is truly fascinating work and I very much enjoyed,

49:15 you know,

49:15 looking through the materials and now listening to the presentations.

49:19 Um,

49:20 I thought that I would do the following and hopefully this is useful for everybody.

49:24 Um,

49:25 I wanna talk a little bit first about

49:28 what we are actually doing in Ukraine and,

49:30 and use that information as kind of the background or the context to talk,

49:35 you know,

49:35 to sort of reflect a little bit.

49:37 On the value added of of the kind of work that we're seeing here and how I see,

49:42 you know,

49:43 we are using it and we can use it further

49:45 to solve some of the challenges that we are

49:47 encountering in our engagement in Ukraine at the moment

49:51 and then I have some specific reflections and sort

49:53 of questions on each one of the presentations,

49:56 um,

49:57 so hopefully that hopefully that that works and,

49:59 and it helps bring everybody on the same page in terms

50:02 of where we are at the moment in in Ukraine.

50:05 Uh,

50:05 but I'm gonna be focusing,

50:06 you know,

50:06 with my new hat a little bit more on sort of the policy

50:09 and operational implications rather than some of

50:11 the technical aspects of the work,

50:12 although I do have,

50:13 uh,

50:14 questions on that as well,

50:15 and I'd love to follow up with the speakers.

50:18 So let me start with,

50:19 uh,

50:20 just a very quick overview of what we've been doing in

50:22 Ukraine over the last few months since the conflict started,

50:26 uh,

50:27 during the first few months of the conflict and up to basically about a month ago,

50:32 most of our engagement.

50:34 Has been in the form of fiscal support,

50:36 right?

50:37 Support to the budget

50:38 to help the government breach uh what's at this point a very large fiscal hole.

50:43 And a lot of that support has been focusing on pretty poor,

50:47 uh,

50:47 government services,

50:49 uh,

50:50 education,

50:50 health,

50:51 first respondents,

50:53 and also supporting some of the social transfers and the

50:55 pensions and Claus alluded a little bit to the,

50:58 to some of the government programs that are in place

51:00 to help,

51:01 uh,

51:01 farmers

51:02 and the way this is done is,

51:04 you know,

51:04 they spend the money we reimburse them for it after we verify it.

51:08 And we've actually managed to uh to sort of move uh quite

51:12 a significant amount of resources that way about 8 billion to date,

51:17 12 billion if you count,

51:18 um,

51:20 what was done sort of in the very early phases and

51:22 a lot of that is not necessarily World Bank resources,

51:24 it's resources from other donors,

51:26 primarily the US,

51:28 but they're being channeled through the bank

51:30 because we can provide that verification and we have this direct partnership

51:34 with the Ministry of Finance.

51:36 And I suspect that that will continue right this very direct

51:40 sort of line into the budget over the next few months,

51:43 but I think it's also become quite clear that um more

51:47 is needed and particularly that we need to start thinking about

51:51 supporting the recovery uh in in the parts of the

51:54 country where the conflict is not at least open conflict.

51:58 And really thinking about some priority areas for engagement where repairs

52:03 can happen and where we can resume or bring up activity

52:07 uh that has suffered from the conflict um so we've started to

52:10 think a little bit more about that and we're at the moment focusing

52:14 on health,

52:15 energy and transport and you'll see how actually some of that relates

52:19 quite directly to what we um

52:21 talked about today and I think as sort of the

52:24 next round of engagements we're probably looking into agriculture.

52:27 Uh,

52:28 possibly housing and education,

52:30 so the idea here is to provide,

52:32 you know,

52:33 support in some of these critical areas

52:35 to be able to disburse quickly,

52:37 but now we are not in the space of really supporting service provision,

52:40 really supporting sort of the purchases of

52:43 equipment that has got,

52:45 um,

52:45 that's been damaged or destroyed and,

52:47 and so on.

52:49 So,

52:50 that's what we are doing.

52:51 In doing that,

52:52 we've encountered

52:53 several challenges,

52:54 as you can imagine,

52:55 and this is where,

52:56 where the connection with some of the work starts to emerge.

53:00 The first challenge is that if you're gonna support,

53:04 you need to first have a sense for what are the impacts of the world,

53:07 right?

53:08 What sectors are affected,

53:09 what are the losses in terms of assets,

53:12 uh,

53:13 you know,

53:13 how are those geographically distributed,

53:16 etc.

53:16 right?

53:17 I mean you need to get a little bit of a photograph,

53:19 a picture of what's going on.

53:21 To do that,

53:22 um,

53:23 we conducted what we call a rapid damage and

53:25 needs assessment which tried to do exactly that,

53:28 assess damages and then think about

53:30 what's needed for recovery and reconstruction.

53:33 That was done initially with data up to June and now it's being updated.

53:38 With data up,

53:38 up to January,

53:39 but as you can imagine,

53:41 this is not your regular piece of,

53:43 you know,

53:43 analytical work because it was,

53:45 you know,

53:45 difficult for us to be there

53:47 because data is scarce,

53:49 uh,

53:50 because,

53:50 you know,

53:50 you can't quite conduct field work and,

53:53 and so on.

53:54 And at the same time,

53:55 the design of some of these projects that I was talking about,

53:58 it's obviously

54:00 very highly dependent on having a good understanding for,

54:03 you know,

54:03 what are some of the priority needs,

54:05 what are some of the locations

54:06 that have suffered these damages and that we can go to,

54:09 and also it's quite important for us moving forward to be able to monitor,

54:13 you know,

54:14 how the money that we are giving

54:16 is used,

54:16 whether the goods and services that are being purchased,

54:19 uh,

54:20 or financed,

54:20 you know,

54:21 are actually being delivered and so on.

54:24 So in that context as I look through these presentations um I think

54:28 a common theme that sort of runs through them from that perspective

54:32 is first

54:34 that in all cases the authors have been able to provide.

54:39 Up to date information

54:41 on various dimensions of the impacts of the conflict

54:44 on households or on a specific sectors

54:47 even in the absence of our ability to sort of be on the field so in that sense,

54:51 you know,

54:51 it's,

54:51 it's,

54:52 it really very nice illustrate very nicely illustrates

54:56 how you can

54:57 sort of,

54:57 you know,

54:58 triangulate and creatively use research and analysis

55:02 to answer some of these very operational questions

55:05 that we are dealing with at the moment.

55:08 Related to that,

55:09 I think it's also really nice to see how,

55:12 you know,

55:13 in,

55:13 in different ways the authors have actually used.

55:17 Data that is readily available,

55:18 but maybe not the kind of data that we normally tend to think about,

55:21 right?

55:21 Like surveys,

55:22 I'm thinking of clouds and,

55:24 and sort of the images that he's using

55:26 combining that with maybe data from the pre-conflict time

55:30 and again using that combination and some economic modeling and analysis

55:34 to provide um a very granular in some cases situ.

55:37 You know,

55:37 picture of what's happening on the ground.

55:40 So in that sense again

55:41 I think some of those commonalities were very interesting to me and I think,

55:45 you know,

55:45 I know in some cases I know Claus is very closely working with our education team,

55:49 but it would be very important for us to

55:51 ensure that that these connections are being made across,

55:54 you know,

55:54 all the different pieces with the teams that are working in the sectors.

55:58 So that's in terms of,

55:59 you know,

55:59 where we are,

56:00 uh,

56:01 what are the challenges that we're facing and how I see

56:03 the work presented today and similar work being extremely useful

56:06 for us as we move forward in the region.

56:09 Then,

56:10 talking a bit more specifically about each one of the three pieces and some

56:13 of the reflections that came to mind as I was reading through it.

56:16 So let me,

56:16 let me go in the order that they were presenting.

56:20 So the migration work,

56:22 um,

56:23 you know,

56:23 this is fascinating.

56:24 I,

56:24 I,

56:24 I think most of you know this,

56:26 but the war in Ukraine has really created

56:27 a massive amount of displacement within Europe,

56:30 uh,

56:31 both within Ukraine,

56:32 right?

56:32 People leaving their,

56:33 uh,

56:34 hometowns and moving to other areas of the country that are considered safer,

56:38 but also sort of leaving Ukraine

56:39 and particularly moving into some of the countries of the EU,

56:42 Poland,

56:43 but also others,

56:44 right?

56:46 So,

56:46 what are some of the,

56:47 the questions that,

56:48 you know,

56:49 looking at the migration analysis for me came to mind?

56:53 Basically reflecting on what's specific about this particular displacement,

56:57 displacement episode because I think it looks somewhat different from other

57:01 displacement episodes and migration episodes that we've seen in the past.

57:05 First,

57:06 when we look at who is moving,

57:08 it's mostly women and children.

57:10 So I wonder,

57:10 and this is a question for everyone.

57:13 What the role of demographics is in their analysis and,

57:17 and demographics in the sense that some of those people are income earners,

57:20 some of them are not,

57:21 does that have an impact in how you

57:22 think about those relationships that we described?

57:25 We also know that because this is happening

57:28 within a country that has a relatively sophisticated

57:31 financial system

57:32 and,

57:33 and where people are were able to save before the war

57:36 because you know income levels were such that uh that savings,

57:39 you know,

57:39 were possible for a large share of the population

57:42 when people leave the country they actually still

57:44 have assets have access to their financial assets,

57:47 right,

57:47 that is still withdrawing money from their bank accounts,

57:50 uh,

57:50 be it from other places in the country or actually from,

57:54 from abroad either.

57:56 Uh,

57:56 and in many cases they've been able,

57:58 or at least you know,

57:58 anecdotal evidence suggests that they've been able to continue their work,

58:02 uh,

58:03 for those of them that were able to telework,

58:05 uh,

58:05 and in the case of kids,

58:06 you know,

58:07 they've been they've been sort of continuing

58:08 their education because the Ministry of,

58:10 um,

58:11 Education in Ukraine very quickly put out,

58:13 put,

58:13 uh,

58:14 together a.

58:14 Sort of remote learning platform.

58:16 So again,

58:17 how do these considerations,

58:19 um,

58:19 how would that sort of help us understand the,

58:22 the analysis on this relationship between mobility and income shocks,

58:26 right?

58:26 These are some things that are very specific about what

58:28 what we're seeing there but uh that I think matter

58:31 in how we interpret the results

58:33 and then,

58:34 uh,

58:34 what are some of the emerging questions that we are facing as we think about how,

58:37 how to support,

58:38 uh,

58:38 these groups.

58:41 You know,

58:41 we know there's been income losses,

58:43 you talked about that as well,

58:44 but we also know that there are,

58:45 there's been loss of assets,

58:47 right?

58:47 Physical assets,

58:48 we don't know the magnitude of that,

58:49 but you know,

58:50 houses are being destroyed,

58:51 other things are being destroyed,

58:53 so this would indicate,

58:55 you know,

58:55 given your analysis that,

58:57 that we would

58:58 be looking at sort of maybe larger flows but also maybe more permanent flows.

59:03 I don't know it,

59:03 it's sort of a question,

59:04 how would you sort of think about that?

59:06 Also,

59:07 how do we think about sort of the short-term impacts,

59:09 mostly on income and the long-term impacts potentially on human capital,

59:13 right?

59:13 They've been able to sort of

59:14 supplement with this remote learning,

59:16 but as we know from COVID,

59:17 that's not a very satisfactory long-term solution.

59:20 And then I was wondering if you could reflect a little bit on

59:24 things that you mentioned in your introduction but maybe not talked about directly

59:27 in the context of the analysis that is other things that may actually affect

59:32 Both the decision to leave and the decision to return,

59:34 and those are sort of safety considerations,

59:37 uh,

59:37 but also what we hear,

59:38 for example,

59:38 from a lot of the migrants,

59:40 the people that have left is that they are paying attention to,

59:42 for example,

59:43 whether government services are resuming in certain areas,

59:46 are schools back up and running.

59:48 You know,

59:49 our clinics,

59:49 uh,

59:50 again working and that's influencing their decision,

59:52 not just whether they can go back to work

59:55 or not.

59:55 And of course there are family separation considerations and so on.

59:58 So again,

59:58 very interesting,

59:59 I'm just,

59:59 I'm just trying to map out,

1:00:01 you know,

1:00:01 what you're finding with some of the issues

1:00:03 that we are grappling with.

1:00:05 On the agriculture side,

1:00:07 um,

1:00:08 fascinating work again,

1:00:09 Claus,

1:00:10 and I know again you've,

1:00:11 you've been sort of instrumental in some of the work we've done on this,

1:00:14 on the rapid damage and needs assessment,

1:00:17 um,

1:00:17 and I completely agree with you that farmers

1:00:19 at the moment are facing multiple constraints,

1:00:21 right?

1:00:22 There are rising cost of inputs,

1:00:24 seed,

1:00:24 fertilizers,

1:00:25 there's lack of credit which you very directly talked about,

1:00:28 but there are a couple of things that you didn't mention that I think are important.

1:00:32 The first one is that.

1:00:35 Because

1:00:35 the war basically brought exports

1:00:38 to a,

1:00:39 to a halt,

1:00:40 and,

1:00:40 you know,

1:00:41 Bob in a way reflected on this a little bit in his presentation.

1:00:44 What happened is that the storage capacity

1:00:47 in country is basically mostly taken up by last year's crop.

1:00:52 So,

1:00:53 when farmers think about,

1:00:54 you know,

1:00:55 dynamically,

1:00:55 right?

1:00:56 Planting and then what's gonna happen once they have their crops,

1:01:00 they,

1:01:00 they do realize that there's a shortage of a storage capacity,

1:01:04 right?

1:01:05 And they also realize that exporting their products for

1:01:08 those of them who actually were market oriented,

1:01:10 it's become significantly harder because of the conflict.

1:01:14 So those are two factors that I think in addition

1:01:16 to the lack of credit that you talked about are

1:01:19 actually influencing or we expect will influence some of the

1:01:22 decisions that that farmers are making and I wondered if,

1:01:25 if there was a way to use

1:01:27 your analysis to,

1:01:28 to maybe tackle

1:01:29 some of those um so in a way I.

1:01:32 As we see the direct impact of the conflict which you talked about,

1:01:34 right,

1:01:34 in terms of destruction,

1:01:36 you know,

1:01:36 land being affected,

1:01:38 damaged,

1:01:38 des destroyed,

1:01:40 and then there are sort of the indirect impacts,

1:01:41 right,

1:01:42 through credit,

1:01:42 through storage,

1:01:43 through markets,

1:01:45 uh,

1:01:45 we see farm,

1:01:46 farm brigade prices having declined quite significantly.

1:01:50 Um,

1:01:51 so I was wondering whether,

1:01:52 for example,

1:01:52 I was thinking like how would you get to that,

1:01:54 right?

1:01:54 So I was thinking if for example,

1:01:57 Is it possible to gather information with the kind of

1:01:59 data you have about crops being left in the field,

1:02:02 right?

1:02:03 So maybe there are some farmers that on the basis of these restrictions are deci,

1:02:06 you know,

1:02:06 have decided that it's actually not worth to sort of,

1:02:09 you know,

1:02:09 harvest and,

1:02:10 and because of these additional sort of costs that are coming,

1:02:13 so it will be very interesting to hear about that.

1:02:15 And then finally,

1:02:16 uh,

1:02:17 on,

1:02:17 on the work on on inflation

1:02:20 uh

1:02:21 by Bob,

1:02:21 um,

1:02:22 you know,

1:02:22 again fascinating,

1:02:24 um,

1:02:25 and,

1:02:25 and you know with my previous sort of hat I've been reinforcing a lot of those

1:02:28 messages that we've tried to get across many

1:02:30 times that you know trade does have very important

1:02:33 distributional um impacts,

1:02:36 um,

1:02:36 here.

1:02:37 I think a couple of observations,

1:02:39 I mean you pointed out that Ukraine and Russia were incredibly important in terms of

1:02:43 global food markets and,

1:02:45 and it's obvious that when,

1:02:46 when they stopped supplying the graph that you showed,

1:02:49 you know,

1:02:49 we saw

1:02:50 prices rising but also I think,

1:02:52 and you didn't talk about that that much when,

1:02:54 when the Black Sea route sort of reopened.

1:02:58 Uh,

1:02:58 we also saw them coming down,

1:03:00 right,

1:03:01 even though the supply did not reach pre-war levels,

1:03:04 but obviously,

1:03:04 you know,

1:03:05 we had more stock

1:03:06 in,

1:03:07 in circulation,

1:03:08 uh,

1:03:08 and also there's been an effort to sort of channel some

1:03:10 of those exports via Europe instead of the Black Sea.

1:03:13 So hopefully all of that has eased

1:03:15 some of the restrictions,

1:03:17 and I was wondering if you've seen that in your

1:03:18 analysis to the extent that you can have more recent,

1:03:21 um,

1:03:23 analysis of the,

1:03:24 of the impacts on prices.

1:03:26 But I guess there are two questions that have come to mind

1:03:29 as,

1:03:29 as we've seen kind of

1:03:32 how,

1:03:32 how this sort of resuming of exports has evolved.

1:03:35 The first one is that I think we assume that as quantity varies,

1:03:39 it's reaching sort of the points.

1:03:42 that we wanted to reach,

1:03:43 or,

1:03:43 or I wonder if that's implicit in your analysis.

1:03:46 So for example,

1:03:46 there's been a lot of questions about whether

1:03:49 You know,

1:03:50 with exports resuming,

1:03:51 are they really sort of reaching the countries

1:03:53 that have suffered the most in your map,

1:03:55 you know,

1:03:55 Africa,

1:03:56 say,

1:03:56 or are,

1:03:57 or are actually are those flows sort of staying in Europe or going being

1:04:01 directed to other places?

1:04:02 Is that something that you can capture with your analysis?

1:04:06 There's also been quite a bit of talk about,

1:04:08 well,

1:04:09 what,

1:04:09 what are these sort of grains that now we are able to put in the market?

1:04:12 What is that being used for?

1:04:14 Is that being used for food or is that being used for feed?

1:04:17 And does that matter?

1:04:19 Uh,

1:04:19 so again,

1:04:20 how do you take those things into account when you look at these

1:04:23 price changes and you basically map those out into the distribution of,

1:04:26 of income.

1:04:27 And then the last question is looking at your first graph,

1:04:31 when you had the prices,

1:04:32 we already saw quite a bit of food inflation happening before

1:04:35 the war and then of course that gets massively exacerbated.

1:04:38 Um,

1:04:39 so there's obviously more going on than just the word,

1:04:41 and,

1:04:42 and,

1:04:42 and I wonder if you had any reflections on

1:04:44 that and particularly on this whole dichotomy between,

1:04:46 is it about availability or is it about distribution,

1:04:49 right,

1:04:49 which we've talked about a lot on this,

1:04:51 uh,

1:04:52 on this whole issue of,

1:04:53 of food trade.

1:04:54 Um,

1:04:55 and what does that tell us in terms of,

1:04:57 you know,

1:04:57 how could countries manage these kinds of shocks a little bit better?

1:05:00 I mean,

1:05:00 we know these things happen periodically.

1:05:03 Uh,

1:05:03 so what are some of the risk management mechanisms that,

1:05:05 uh,

1:05:06 that could come to mind?

1:05:07 Thanks.

1:05:07 Let me stop there.

1:05:08 That's super interesting again.

1:05:11 Thanks,

1:05:11 Carol.

1:05:12 Lots of questions.

1:05:13 Um,

1:05:13 I,

1:05:13 I propose we just before opening it up to general questions,

1:05:16 we go back to each member,

1:05:18 each presenter,

1:05:19 uh,

1:05:20 do one round.

1:05:21 Is that OK?

1:05:22 Maybe in the order you presented,

1:05:23 um,

1:05:25 so Erhan,

1:05:26 thank you very much,

1:05:27 uh,

1:05:28 lots of stuff for us to think about,

1:05:30 uh,

1:05:30 great comments,

1:05:32 uh,

1:05:32 so.

1:05:35 I

1:05:35 would say some of the comments are about,

1:05:40 for us to think about more,

1:05:41 and some of them are about

1:05:43 how we should think about the analysis.

1:05:45 So I would like to distinguish between these two aspects.

1:05:49 Uh,

1:05:49 first of all,

1:05:50 the,

1:05:51 especially the part about heterogeneity is about the core of the analysis,

1:05:55 and as Carolina mentioned,

1:05:56 it is,

1:05:57 uh,

1:05:58 probably

1:05:59 more women and women and children leaving the conflict areas.

1:06:03 We saw that in the recent invasion,

1:06:05 it was

1:06:06 basically all women and children,

1:06:08 and

1:06:08 uh.

1:06:10 Unfortunately,

1:06:11 we don't have the exact,

1:06:13 uh,

1:06:14 demographics of the,

1:06:16 of the.

1:06:17 Uh,

1:06:19 displaced people,

1:06:20 we have a sub sample of them,

1:06:21 and we can see that,

1:06:23 uh,

1:06:23 the ratio of women and children are a bit higher than others,

1:06:27 but they are not

1:06:28 as extreme as the recent invasion

1:06:31 and

1:06:32 the main problem for our analysis is we don't have this data for the before conflict,

1:06:37 uh,

1:06:38 flows,

1:06:39 so that's why it's not possible for us to to make the analysis more granular,

1:06:43 but.

1:06:44 What the numbers we find are more or less a weighted average of different groups,

1:06:49 and it is weighted

1:06:51 naturally

1:06:52 by the flows

1:06:54 before the conflict,

1:06:55 so

1:06:55 I would imagine that

1:06:57 the

1:06:57 negative impact for women and children

1:07:00 are a bit

1:07:03 counter.

1:07:05 Less since they were they were new movers

1:07:08 so I think for that reason it's important to

1:07:10 think of this as a as a general snapshot and

1:07:13 an average and it is for sure

1:07:16 uh

1:07:17 a lower bound that that we want to emphasize it.

1:07:21 Also,

1:07:22 there are a couple of issues that

1:07:25 At first thought

1:07:27 they might seem to impact the analysis,

1:07:30 but they don't.

1:07:30 For example,

1:07:31 whether the flows are temporary or

1:07:34 permanent,

1:07:34 whether they had assets in the region,

1:07:38 and what

1:07:38 the amenities and other

1:07:41 things to help to

1:07:44 impact their decision,

1:07:44 all these things

1:07:46 we don't need

1:07:47 to know.

1:07:47 Anything about these assumptions

1:07:49 to calculate the welfare impacts.

1:07:52 However,

1:07:52 these are very important topics that we need to think about for a general picture,

1:07:56 and this is one of the things that we studied in the police report to

1:07:59 figure out.

1:08:01 I think the Ukraine government was trying to help the

1:08:03 people in eastern Ukraine and motivate them to move back and

1:08:07 just keep the region

1:08:09 productive.

1:08:10 Uh,

1:08:10 for those decisions,

1:08:12 of course,

1:08:12 the whether these decisions are

1:08:14 permanent or temporary and how we can motivate them to return and what,

1:08:18 how can we help them

1:08:20 by

1:08:20 helping their education and different amenities,

1:08:23 maybe electricity,

1:08:24 housing,

1:08:25 water,

1:08:25 and things like that.

1:08:28 So

1:08:29 that's,

1:08:29 that's,

1:08:30 that's an important

1:08:31 big picture,

1:08:32 uh,

1:08:33 question,

1:08:34 uh,

1:08:35 about the assets in the other side and

1:08:38 we know that

1:08:39 before the recent invasion,

1:08:41 the conflict was

1:08:43 low intensity and people were moving.

1:08:46 Back and forth from the conflict line,

1:08:49 so the contact line was porous,

1:08:51 and

1:08:52 we know that

1:08:53 many people actually stayed in Donbas region

1:08:56 who were displaced from the eastern parts of Donbas and they would

1:08:59 and even those who are in the

1:09:02 uh

1:09:02 separatist controlled areas would go back,

1:09:05 make daily trips to the other side to withdraw

1:09:08 their pension and salaries and things like that.

1:09:11 So

1:09:12 for that reason,

1:09:13 I think many people stayed in that region

1:09:16 and uh

1:09:18 and we don't use those numbers so we use the uh the

1:09:21 the flows to other regions for

1:09:23 for that purpose.

1:09:25 Uh,

1:09:26 and I think that's,

1:09:27 that's all.

1:09:28 Thank you.

1:09:30 Because

1:09:31 Yes,

1:09:32 so thanks a lot on the storage question.

1:09:36 I think definitely what we see for the summer crops is relatively short term.

1:09:42 On the other hand,

1:09:43 I think that storage is probably overrated.

1:09:47 I think,

1:09:47 I mean,

1:09:48 they're exporting,

1:09:49 I mean,

1:09:50 we heard yesterday from the minister they're exporting 9 million tons per month

1:09:55 through the,

1:09:56 even despite the grain blockage,

1:09:58 so they actually expect the silos to be full,

1:10:01 actually,

1:10:02 and,

1:10:02 and of course the donors have been rushing in there.

1:10:06 I think Canada,

1:10:07 Japan,

1:10:08 whatever,

1:10:08 they provided 6 million tons of mobile storage,

1:10:13 which are these silo bags that you can put on the field.

1:10:17 Actually,

1:10:17 I mean,

1:10:17 they're running that thing through the agrarian registry.

1:10:20 If they give us data

1:10:22 on who actually got the storage,

1:10:23 we can evaluate whether that has any impact or not.

1:10:26 And or whether these people,

1:10:28 and of course we do see in the longer term,

1:10:30 and that's why I was referring to the winter crops,

1:10:33 we see a significant drops,

1:10:35 a drop in terms of winter

1:10:37 crop sowing

1:10:38 that is certainly something farmers are sitting on the fence

1:10:42 to see what is going to happen during the in the until the spring,

1:10:47 because even if you don't plant now,

1:10:48 and of course it's a rational decision not to plant now

1:10:51 because you're tying up a lot of capital.

1:10:55 So I think they can substitute for that with summer crops or in the spring.

1:10:59 So I think that will definitely be what will happening until then

1:11:03 will be a significant determinant.

1:11:05 But I think what is important is

1:11:08 that,

1:11:09 I mean,

1:11:09 and there the war,

1:11:10 I mean that we had already hoped that the land reform

1:11:14 will provide a basis for diversifying the agricultural sector in

1:11:18 Ukraine a little bit because I think even globally.

1:11:21 I mean,

1:11:21 you don't see anywhere

1:11:23 farms as large as in Ukraine.

1:11:26 That was one of the reasons why I got into Ukraine in the first place,

1:11:29 because I was surprised

1:11:30 and I didn't,

1:11:32 I didn't get any enlightenment yet,

1:11:34 so I think,

1:11:36 and I mean

1:11:37 people there,

1:11:39 especially before you had

1:11:41 before the land market worked,

1:11:42 I mean

1:11:43 there was no,

1:11:44 no investment,

1:11:45 it's only 5 annual crops,

1:11:48 it's soybean,

1:11:49 it's

1:11:50 Wheat,

1:11:51 sunflower,

1:11:52 and maize,

1:11:53 and that is what they grow year in,

1:11:55 year out,

1:11:56 which is very damaging to the,

1:11:58 I mean,

1:11:59 I think they're mining the soil,

1:12:01 or at least there is some soil mining going on that is in terms of

1:12:05 long term fertility and of course it's very labor extensive,

1:12:08 so I think what we are seeing,

1:12:09 and that's where I think that 50 million grant that the EU provided

1:12:13 was actually quite interesting because all of that went to people.

1:12:17 I mean,

1:12:17 We did some very,

1:12:19 I mean,

1:12:20 our team did some checks.

1:12:22 They are doing

1:12:23 strawberries,

1:12:24 they're doing raspberries,

1:12:25 they're doing very high value crops and with drip

1:12:28 irrigation and that of course that generates very high returns

1:12:31 and that is something that I think you can actually,

1:12:34 especially in the areas that are not conflict affected right now

1:12:38 and even if and if there is credit,

1:12:40 I think we had.

1:12:41 I mean,

1:12:42 so I think if,

1:12:42 if the financial sector works,

1:12:44 you can actually draw in a lot of private capital

1:12:47 to support that diversification,

1:12:49 and that is something that I think

1:12:52 there are huge opportunities despite the war going on because

1:12:56 a large part of the of the country is not really

1:12:59 that much affected by the conflict.

1:13:04 Thanks,

1:13:05 over to you,

1:13:05 Bob.

1:13:06 Yeah,

1:13:07 thanks,

1:13:07 Carolina for the excellent questions.

1:13:09 So it's indeed true that,

1:13:11 uh,

1:13:11 prices have come down.

1:13:13 Uh,

1:13:14 quite a bit after,

1:13:15 uh,

1:13:16 sort of these restrictions on trade and experts were,

1:13:19 uh,

1:13:20 alleviated,

1:13:21 but we believe that sort of the initial jump in prices

1:13:24 reflects both.

1:13:27 Uh,

1:13:27 supply disruptions,

1:13:28 but also

1:13:29 stockpiling

1:13:30 and uncertainty,

1:13:32 and those two latter forces,

1:13:33 stockpiling and uncertainty,

1:13:34 are not forces we capture very well

1:13:36 with our model.

1:13:37 So when we sort of do a sort of a

1:13:39 calibration exercise and we try to verify

1:13:42 whether the price changes predicted by our model

1:13:44 match those that we observe in reality,

1:13:46 we see that they're slightly lower,

1:13:48 like ballpark,

1:13:49 you know,

1:13:49 they're in the same ballpark but they're lower,

1:13:51 and we think that's because,

1:13:52 you know,

1:13:52 our models abstracts from these,

1:13:54 these considerations.

1:13:55 Um,

1:13:56 so to answer your question sort of.

1:13:59 Is food really reaching these developing countries?

1:14:02 I don't have a good answer to that.

1:14:04 Yes.

1:14:04 Like,

1:14:04 usually we would,

1:14:05 for instance,

1:14:05 like look at the Comrade,

1:14:06 but

1:14:08 Those data are not sort of uh up to date yet so

1:14:11 we'll only be able to tell in a in a few months from now

1:14:14 and your second question,

1:14:15 you know,

1:14:15 as to sort of,

1:14:16 you know,

1:14:17 the sort of broader longer term

1:14:20 impacts on on uh

1:14:21 food markets,

1:14:22 for instance,

1:14:23 sort of

1:14:24 the,

1:14:24 the

1:14:25 evolution of the pandemic and,

1:14:26 and,

1:14:27 and climate change.

1:14:29 Uh,

1:14:30 my sense is very much that those have like contributed to,

1:14:32 to sort of persistently

1:14:33 higher,

1:14:34 uh,

1:14:34 food prices.

1:14:35 So for instance,

1:14:35 in the FT

1:14:36 today sort of there's an article talking

1:14:39 precisely,

1:14:39 uh,

1:14:40 about this

1:14:41 in principle,

1:14:42 sort of,

1:14:42 you know,

1:14:42 our model,

1:14:44 uh,

1:14:45 would accommodate,

1:14:46 uh,

1:14:46 this type of,

1:14:47 uh,

1:14:48 shock.

1:14:48 So I think sort of framework we have set up sort of,

1:14:51 uh,

1:14:51 lends itself to,

1:14:52 to sort of analysis of these,

1:14:53 but we haven't explicitly.

1:14:55 Uh,

1:14:55 incorporated these because we wanted to isolate,

1:14:57 uh,

1:14:58 the impact of,

1:14:59 of the war but there's no question that they're of course very,

1:15:01 very important.

1:15:07 Thanks everyone.

1:15:08 Carol,

1:15:09 I will,

1:15:09 I will come back to you,

1:15:10 to give you a chance if you have any reactions to any of these,

1:15:12 but we have one question online,

1:15:15 uh,

1:15:15 but I wanted to see if there's any questions in the room.

1:15:19 Um

1:15:22 Maybe we'll go to,

1:15:23 to,

1:15:23 to Korum,

1:15:24 who's online on the Webex.

1:15:26 Khuram,

1:15:27 are you still there?

1:15:27 Do you want to come in and ask you,

1:15:29 you had two questions.

1:15:30 If you could pose them briefly.

1:15:38 Uh,

1:15:38 Korum,

1:15:40 let me see,

1:15:40 are you still there?

1:15:42 Am I audible?

1:15:44 Yes,

1:15:44 we can hear you.

1:15:45 Hello.

1:15:46 Yes.

1:15:46 My first question was that it has been stated in one of the presentations,

1:15:50 the last one,

1:15:51 I suppose,

1:15:53 that the

1:15:55 shortages in the global wheat supply would benefit Iraq and Pakistan.

1:16:00 Uh,

1:16:00 but now,

1:16:01 uh,

1:16:01 the government in Pakistan has been issuing warning,

1:16:04 uh,

1:16:05 signals of possible import of wheat around 5 million tons.

1:16:10 Uh,

1:16:11 next year because of a reduction in the sowing area of wheat crop

1:16:15 due to the devastating floods.

1:16:17 So how these two opposing hypotheses can be reconciled?

1:16:21 So,

1:16:22 this is my first question

1:16:23 that can be answered.

1:16:27 So why don't you go ahead with your second one as well and we'll do a roundup.

1:16:31 OK.

1:16:32 OK.

1:16:33 My second question was that

1:16:35 the diversion of the funds from the G7 countries and EU

1:16:40 to the humanitarian and war effort in

1:16:43 Ukraine has deprived the funds to the third world countries who are uh

1:16:48 uh.

1:16:49 Facing uh

1:16:52 uh

1:16:53 quite a bit economic

1:16:55 meltdown because of,

1:16:57 uh,

1:16:58 uh,

1:17:00 global food prices and also oil prices.

1:17:05 Uh,

1:17:05 so how can,

1:17:07 uh,

1:17:07 it can be

1:17:10 said that these countries could

1:17:13 It should also be

1:17:14 taken as a factor in the analysis

1:17:17 when the impact of the war is being

1:17:22 studied,

1:17:23 so this is my second question.

1:17:26 Great,

1:17:26 thank you.

1:17:27 I,

1:17:27 I guess,

1:17:27 and then we had another question on YouTube,

1:17:29 but I,

1:17:30 I'll,

1:17:30 I'll fold it into that second point,

1:17:31 but if I could expand maybe.

1:17:34 Both of these,

1:17:35 um,

1:17:36 on the first one,

1:17:37 I mean,

1:17:37 obviously there's a lot more going on,

1:17:39 the floods in Pakistan case in point,

1:17:41 but,

1:17:41 but how do you see,

1:17:43 you know,

1:17:44 what you're isolating from your model in terms of all that?

1:17:46 I mean,

1:17:46 Carol already alluded to,

1:17:47 oh,

1:17:48 things are changing,

1:17:48 how up to date is this?

1:17:49 and

1:17:50 uh what are your plans for expanding on this or or is is is is that sort of

1:17:56 for future work for people to do through,

1:17:58 through the online systems?

1:17:59 And then the second question,

1:18:00 I guess

1:18:01 we could expand that a little bit to think more generally about,

1:18:03 you know,

1:18:04 there's a lot of players here.

1:18:05 I mean,

1:18:05 Klaus kind of alluded to that a little bit with the EU and

1:18:09 other players.

1:18:09 I mean,

1:18:10 there was a question uh in,

1:18:11 in,

1:18:12 on YouTube about FAO,

1:18:14 um.

1:18:15 But I guess more generally and maybe I don't

1:18:18 even know if there's really a question here and

1:18:21 just how do we think about sort of

1:18:23 maybe this is to Carol actually

1:18:25 working in a space where there are so many players and

1:18:28 maybe the question is where do you see the bank's role,

1:18:31 I guess maybe let's put it that way.

1:18:32 Let's make it sort of

1:18:33 in,

1:18:33 in the space of all these different actors responding in Ukraine.

1:18:38 What is,

1:18:38 I mean you alluded to that a little bit at the very beginning,

1:18:41 but what,

1:18:41 what do you see our role going forward over the sort of short to medium term?

1:18:45 Uh,

1:18:46 in this.

1:18:46 So maybe,

1:18:47 maybe,

1:18:47 I don't know if Bob,

1:18:48 you wanna sort of take that first one and then maybe Carol

1:18:50 for the second unless Klaus you want to come in on,

1:18:52 on the second.

1:18:55 Yeah,

1:18:55 so thanks a lot for the,

1:18:57 the,

1:18:57 the comment,

1:18:58 uh,

1:18:58 Khuram.

1:18:58 So

1:18:59 I should perhaps have stressed more that sort of

1:19:02 in our model sort of we keep

1:19:04 all these other factors

1:19:06 like

1:19:06 constant so we do not accommodate,

1:19:08 uh,

1:19:09 for instance,

1:19:10 you know,

1:19:10 unusual,

1:19:11 uh,

1:19:11 weather shocks.

1:19:13 And of course they're very important,

1:19:15 but that's precisely why

1:19:16 we have sort of these country specific online,

1:19:19 uh,

1:19:20 tools

1:19:21 that you can use sort of for your own,

1:19:23 uh,

1:19:23 analysis where

1:19:25 those of us sort of a better knowledge of the,

1:19:27 the specific country you're working on

1:19:29 can actually use that information and simulate

1:19:31 what the effect would be if you do take

1:19:33 those type of events,

1:19:35 uh,

1:19:36 into consideration.

1:19:38 So,

1:19:42 Great.

1:19:43 Carol,

1:19:43 I mean,

1:19:43 I realize it's a bit of an open-ended question to you and,

1:19:46 and maybe a sensitive one,

1:19:47 so please feel free to,

1:19:48 to,

1:19:48 to answer it in the way you'd like.

1:19:51 It's now happy to say a few words.

1:19:53 I mean,

1:19:53 it's a really,

1:19:54 it's a very fluid landscape,

1:19:56 right?

1:19:56 Because as you said,

1:19:58 obviously Ukraine,

1:20:00 I think has mobilized an enormous amount of support,

1:20:03 it being uh considered part of Europe,

1:20:05 of course,

1:20:06 you know,

1:20:06 the European Union and,

1:20:08 and European actors are very focused on,

1:20:10 on it,

1:20:10 so is the US so,

1:20:11 so there's lots of moving pieces,

1:20:13 right,

1:20:13 when it comes to helping Ukraine.

1:20:15 So what's up,

1:20:16 what,

1:20:16 what role have we been playing within that landscape?

1:20:18 Um.

1:20:19 So,

1:20:19 a couple of things maybe to say.

1:20:21 First,

1:20:22 we are,

1:20:22 I think,

1:20:23 the only game in town

1:20:25 excluding local researchers,

1:20:27 of which,

1:20:28 you know,

1:20:28 there are some who are doing work that is actually building an evidence base,

1:20:32 and I include in,

1:20:34 in that,

1:20:34 the work that we just saw today and another work that I know.

1:20:38 You guys are doing.

1:20:39 I also,

1:20:40 you know,

1:20:41 mean by that the,

1:20:42 the rapid,

1:20:42 um,

1:20:43 damages and needs assessment.

1:20:45 So we are on what we are one of the few

1:20:47 actors that is actually trying to bring some data and some evidence

1:20:51 to the discussion on,

1:20:52 on what support is needed,

1:20:54 you know,

1:20:54 in what sectors,

1:20:55 what locations,

1:20:56 what the magnitude of the impacts is,

1:20:59 and so on.

1:20:59 And of course,

1:21:00 you know,

1:21:00 this is a high capacity government,

1:21:01 so they do have data themselves,

1:21:03 you know,

1:21:03 so in many cases we are doing that.

1:21:06 Uh,

1:21:06 together with the government,

1:21:07 I mean,

1:21:08 Claus was also alluding to his relationships with,

1:21:10 uh,

1:21:10 with the Ministry of Agriculture and others,

1:21:12 but I think that's an important role that we are playing,

1:21:15 right?

1:21:15 Trying to,

1:21:16 again,

1:21:17 to the extent possible,

1:21:18 have some of these discussions being anchored

1:21:20 in,

1:21:20 in data and evidence.

1:21:23 And then the other role that,

1:21:24 that we are playing,

1:21:26 and this is obviously more

1:21:29 And about the technical level because of course the political level,

1:21:32 you know,

1:21:32 follows uh a different sort of dynamic is.

1:21:36 To the extent possible trying to ensure that that we are all somewhat coordinated,

1:21:41 particularly around some of these very critical sectors where,

1:21:44 where everybody's focusing,

1:21:45 right?

1:21:46 So energy

1:21:47 is right now receiving a lot of attention because

1:21:50 if you're following the news you all probably know that

1:21:53 um

1:21:54 the latest sort of Russian attacks are very focused on damaging the

1:21:58 energy infrastructure uh because that's gonna have a pretty dire effect.

1:22:02 In the middle of the winter,

1:22:03 if heating is not available,

1:22:05 electricity is not available,

1:22:06 and so on.

1:22:07 So,

1:22:07 so,

1:22:07 there are lots of sort of actors,

1:22:08 you know,

1:22:09 coming into that space,

1:22:10 trying to help.

1:22:11 And I think at the technical level,

1:22:13 working with the fund,

1:22:14 working with some of the other development banks that are active in Ukraine,

1:22:19 we've tried to sort of put forward ideas that

1:22:22 You know,

1:22:22 that sort of help us all coordinate,

1:22:25 you know,

1:22:25 and play to our comparative advantage,

1:22:26 but everybody's kind of aware of what,

1:22:28 of what everybody else is doing and,

1:22:29 you know,

1:22:30 it's,

1:22:30 it's super time consuming but it's helpful because

1:22:33 ultimately,

1:22:34 we are not duplicating,

1:22:35 we are complementary,

1:22:36 and,

1:22:37 and again,

1:22:37 you know,

1:22:37 we're all ultimately working with the same actors and,

1:22:40 and they are overwhelmed.

1:22:41 I mean,

1:22:41 we tend to forget.

1:22:43 Because they're capable,

1:22:44 very capable,

1:22:44 but you know,

1:22:45 we don't get them to forget that they're sort of fighting a war,

1:22:47 right on the other side.

1:22:48 So,

1:22:49 you know,

1:22:49 so you have to kind of

1:22:50 modulate your expectations.

1:22:52 And then,

1:22:52 of course,

1:22:53 you know,

1:22:53 whatever we can,

1:22:54 we are providing

1:22:55 financial resources,

1:22:57 although we are a little bit constrained in that space

1:23:01 because,

1:23:01 you know,

1:23:01 Ukraine is not an either country,

1:23:03 so they don't have access to either resources.

1:23:06 And the bank,

1:23:07 it's,

1:23:08 uh,

1:23:08 it was already quite exposed in Ukraine before the conflict

1:23:12 and therefore the margin that we have for new lending

1:23:15 is quite limited.

1:23:16 So we've been very dependent,

1:23:18 as I said in my introduction,

1:23:21 uh,

1:23:21 on,

1:23:22 you know,

1:23:22 countries being willing to put money for Ukraine

1:23:25 and to channel that money through us.

1:23:27 So a lot of what we've done on the financial side.

1:23:29 Again,

1:23:30 hasn't been with our resources,

1:23:31 but it's been a facilitator role

1:23:34 helping others that want to give to Ukraine,

1:23:37 you know,

1:23:37 manage that transaction and then putting some sort of

1:23:40 controls and,

1:23:41 and monitoring mechanisms around that.

1:23:43 So that,

1:23:44 that I think it's kind of the role that we are playing,

1:23:45 but again it's a very fluid,

1:23:47 uh,

1:23:48 very,

1:23:48 very fluid landscape and I suspect that things will

1:23:51 continue to evolve over the next few months.

1:23:55 Great.

1:23:56 Carol,

1:23:56 thanks.

1:23:56 I,

1:23:56 I,

1:23:57 I actually think that's probably a good place to end the,

1:23:59 the,

1:23:59 the,

1:23:59 the discussion.

1:24:01 Um,

1:24:02 I mean,

1:24:02 fascinating to hear sort of the complexities

1:24:04 on the ground and your reflections on how

1:24:07 this kind of research both in terms of the tools that it's

1:24:10 bringing and the results that it's bringing

1:24:13 can sort of contribute to,

1:24:14 to,

1:24:15 to moving our agenda forward within the country and then as we saw also globally,

1:24:19 um,

1:24:20 So obviously this is the,

1:24:21 this is,

1:24:21 this is uh uh an ongoing and unfolding process of,

1:24:26 of,

1:24:26 of both what's happening on the ground and the process of,

1:24:28 of

1:24:29 providing tools and,

1:24:30 and,

1:24:30 and research and we hope to

1:24:32 definitely to be able to,

1:24:33 to continue doing that.

1:24:34 So

1:24:35 with that,

1:24:35 thank you everybody for coming and for your attention,

1:24:37 for those in the room and those online

1:24:39 and uh please join me in thanking the presenters and our discussion today.

1:24:43 Thank you.

showAllTimestamps
no
transcript
OK, thanks everyone. I guess we can get started and, and, and, uh, people will join as we, as we start the introductions here. So hi, hello everyone. Uh my name is Dion Filmer, I'm the director of the World Bank's Development Research Group. Uh, welcome to this uh policy research talk, the last of 2022. Um, as many of you know, these talks give us an opportunity to present the work coming out of the World Bank's research group. Uh, with the goal of sharing the findings with colleagues inside and outside the department, uh, along with others outside the World Bank. And with that, um, let me welcome our audiences on both Webex as well as YouTube. Um, today we have a slightly different format than our usual. Uh, we have 3 presenters who will be giving relatively brief presentations. We have Erhan Artuk, Klaus Deininger, and Bob Rikers. They'll each provide us an overview of their research, uh, into the costs of, of the war in Ukraine on in terms of human well-being, both within Ukraine itself, as well as around the world. Erhan is a senior economist in the trade and integration, uh, team, uh, and his research primarily focuses on international trade policy and its effect on labor markets and jobs. Uh, Klaus, uh, is a lead economist in the sustainability infrastructure team. Uh, focuses, uh, on income and asset inequality and its relationship to poverty reduction and growth, land issues, and capacity building, uh, for policy analysis and evaluation. Finally, Bob is a senior senior economist in the trade and international integration team whose research interests include state capture, corruption, and the distributional impacts of trade. I'm really grateful and uh to welcome back uh Carolina Sanchez as a discussant today. Uh, Carol is currently the director of strategy and operations in Europe and Central Asia at the World Bank. Prior to this assignment, she was the global director of the poverty and Equity Global Practice, in which she served as a discussant to one of our former previous uh uh PRTs. Uh, before that assignment, she was the practice manager for poverty and equity in the Europe and Central Asia region. Uh, Carol has worked on operations, policy advice, and analytical activities in Eastern Europe, Latin America, and South Asia, and she was a core team member, uh, of the team that worked on the 2012 World Development report Gender Equality and Development. So I'll ask each speaker to speak for approximately 15 minutes, after which we'll hear from Carol for 10 to 15 minutes. Uh, we'll conclude the session with Q&A from the audience. Uh, if you have a question, please use the raised hand option in Webex or signal to me in the chat, or raise your hand in the room, go to the mic. Um, if you have a question, and I will call on you. Um, if you follow me on YouTube, uh, please submit your question in the chat and that'll get, uh, relayed to me. A reminder, we are recording the session. Um, with that over to and I think we're gonna do, uh, Erhan, Klaus, and then Bob in that order and I will give you, since the three of you and we need to keep on time, I will give you uh some warning, hope it's not too disruptive, uh, before 15 minutes, OK? OK. Erhan, over to you. Uh, thank you very much. Uh, I'm Assuming that my slides are, uh, you can see online. Um, So this is a recent work, uh, with I'm going to present our findings from a recent work with uh Nicolas Gomez Par and Harun Unar. Uh, this study is about the impact of conflict in the eastern Ukraine, uh, between 2014 and 2019 before the recent invasion. So, uh, I just want to like make sure that the, the, the, the context is, is, is well understood because the impact of the war will be much larger after the invasion. That's what you would expect. Uh, so what is the impact of conflict on welfare? This is a very old question, and we know that it has a very heavy toll on people, and we also know that it is difficult to account for non-monetary aspects like death, sexual violence, erosion of social trust, and corruption in the institutions. Those are all aspects which are difficult to keep track of. And even if you want to look at the. Uh, regular or more conventional measures of impact, GDP and other economic measures are often inaccurate because during the time of war it's difficult to keep track of, of these statistics. So we will need a more creative, uh, different approach to measure the impact rather than looking at the conventional economic measures. And the idea here is to use the outflow migration data from the conflict areas. So we are going to look at the, uh. Displaced people and try to figure out the welfare changes from that. So this work is Uh, it's a follow up to our previous work with the with the same team. Uh, we started to work on this type of topics with the refugees in Kenya and then we look at the impact of war in Syria and one thing that we learned from that policy report is that. It is very difficult to explain the outflow of migrants or refugees from by looking at just the economic data. So for example, you are trying to look at the destruction of the buildings, and, and if you just put them in a regular macro model, that you will find that the impacts are not as large as you would predict from what you observe from the refugee outflows. So that report. We tried to explain the reasons and we we concluded that it is because of the institutional degradation and violence and other things, so it was difficult to assess the actual economic impact. Then more recently we worked on the recovery program in eastern Ukraine with the same team, and this report gave us the context and we understood the environment better and we had access to data. So let me just briefly explain the context here. Before the current invasion, there was a conflict in the eastern part of Ukraine which is called Donbas. Donbas means Donetsk Basin. It's a portmanteau of words, and it is the center of Ukraine's declining mining industry, and it was, it used to be one of the industrial centers in Ukraine, and conflict started around 2014 after then President. Uh was removed from the office by the Senate, by the parliament, and then separatists took control of the eastern parts of Donbass, and Donbass consists of two oblasts. One of them is Donetsk and the other is Luhansk, and separatists had the control of the eastern part and the western parts were controlled by the Ukrainian government. And just to give you a context, uh, compared to the recent invasion, this was a very low intensity conflict, or you cannot really compare it with the other conflicts. For example, in Syria there were about half a million people dead, and in this conflict the numbers were much lower, around 5000 people, and then people could move easily during this time, so it was relatively low intensity. So, but still we saw lots of people moving away from the conflict regions and the idea is to use these outflows from these regions to measure the economic impact of the conflict. So how do we do it? So we have a very simple intuition. So although this is. This is very simple and illustrative exercise. It really shows the the the method, how it works. So One of the, sorry about that. So one of the main, one of the major methods that we use in migration literature and also in the trade literature is to regress outflows to income changes. In this graph, you see that on the x axis, there are, you see income changes. So let's say how much income changes from year to year in a particular region in Ukraine, let's say that Donetsk. And then on the y axis you see the outflows from Donetsk. So this negative relationship shows that as you increase the income, the outflows from a particular region decreases. So if there are more economic opportunities, people are more likely to stay. If the economic opportunities decline, people leave. So this is a very simple idea from the migration literature. And we actually estimate, we could estimate this, this. This line and we use it, we use instrumental variables and we find that about 6% increase in income in an oblast reduces outflows by 6%, so it's about a 0.6 elasticity and it's, it is similar to other numbers that were found in other research. So, so what is the idea? The idea is really simple. So you see this graph with outflows on the Y and income changes on the X axis, just flip it. Flip, make the x axis outflows and Y axis income changes. Then you can map outflows to income changes. So this Reversion Can tell us the impact of a conflict in a region and by looking at the outflows we can predict the implied welfare changes from this graph. So this is a very simple illustration. I'll show you a more accurate picture later on and we can try to answer this question. Assume that migration probability increased by 700%. So this is how much the outflows increase in during the during the conflict then what does it say about welfare? So this is how are we going, how we are going to analyze the question. So this basic idea is a is an old idea. It's well established in the literature. Started with Hosam Miller, which is used for econometric, as an econometric tool, but we used it in a. In a paper, uh, about 10 years ago, uh, to calculate the. The role of mobility in workers' welfare in a paper and also in trade it's also well understood, uh, for example, you can calculate the gains from trade by looking at the trade flows. That's a paper by Arcolakis Kosino and Rodriguez Clare. So this is well understood, but it is not, uh, it is well established, but it is not really popular in the literature, so we don't know that many papers actually trying to do. Something like this, so the. The nice thing about this approach that I'm going to present is that it is very general. There is a model. Uh, behind it, but it's not a black box. It has almost no assumptions. You can just play with the parameters and make it static or dynamic. You can, uh. You can make it perfect foresight or agnostic about expectation formation. You can make it risk averse, risk neutral at different time preferences. So the numbers that I'm going to present will be the welfare impact as predicted by the residents. So we don't need to understand how they make their decisions. So we. We just need to assume that they are not making systematic errors, that is rational, and we don't know how they form their expectations. OK, so, and it is so general, it would give us the setups that are popular in the literature, so you can play with the parameters you can get, for example, Eaton Quorum model or uh Stephen Redding's model, so. It, it basically, uh, can be adjusted, so our method can be adjusted to almost any discrete choice model in the literature. OK, so I'm just going to present the general idea now. So we have a model pretty much summarized by this chart. Uh, we have a, we have residents in Donetsk, let's say, and they have options to move, so they can move to, let's say Kiev City, Chernihiv, Lviv, or Poland. And When they make their choice, we don't assume if they make it based on a current value or future value or how do they assess the impact. Are they risk neutral or not, so we don't assume anything about that. So if you look at the numbers before and after the conflict, for example, in the Kiev city, you will see that the migration probability to Kiev city per year increased from 0.2% to 2.2%. That's a 10 times increase. So it is similar numbers for different oblasts within the Ukraine, and unfortunately we don't have data, for example, for those who are going to Poland. And this method does not require knowing all the flaws. As long as we have some flaws, we can calculate the impact, OK? So here is the. More detail on the same idea. So we have 3, let's say oblasts, and we see that the migration probabilities increase from 10 times to 5 times. The probability of going to Kiev city increased 10 times to Chernihiv 5 times. And what does it mean? That means that utility of staying in Donetsk is decreasing. So you could say, OK, how do you know that utility to going to Lviv is not increasing, so they might be from Lviv they might be going to Poland. Right, so, uh, we have, uh, robustness tests and we calculate it using different, uh, corridors and our results are very robust, so we can take care of these type of concerns and we can just ignore, for example, if you think that there's a problem with Tel Liv, you can just ignore that corridor and calculate the numbers using other, other corridors. So 7 times outflows means a huge decline in the utility in Donetsk. So. The next question is what would be the decline in income to make the residents of Donbas as worse off as the conflict, so we are trying to find this number. Because since our calculations are based on utility, it's not really, we cannot really understand what does it mean for the workers' uh residents' income without putting it into a utility function. So. Uh We invert the utility function more or less, and we find that numbers for Donetsk and Luhansk are similar and precisely estimated. The standards errors are very small, and we just want to emphasize that we don't take the impact. Ukraine-wide impact into account. So it could be the case that because of conflict, maybe Ukraine is spending so much money and so much effort on the conflict. The general GDP might be declining. So we don't account for that. So that's very important and the exact impact depends on the structure of the utility function because we are mapping the income to utility. If it's a risk averse individual, it will be a utility function concave. It will mean a different income impact compared to a risk neutral agent, which would have a linear utility function. And also it depends on the time discount. So if you think that people are deciding based on instantaneous shocks like current changes or whether they are taking the future into account, you'll get different results. So we have all these parameters covered, we take them from the literature and try different numbers, and we have a general picture. So if the losses are amortized for 10 years, we find that with the risk averse agents, don't loss is equal to 31% to 40% of income for 10 years. And I think it is for me it's easier to. Understand the numbers if they are calculated as lifetime loss if the agents are risk averse. The loss is equal to 9% to 8%. Of lifetime income. So if we assume that the agents are risk averse, they are losing about 10% of their income lifetime. And if the agents are risk neutral, the loss is between 7% to 25% of their lifetime income. So the income loss, the equivalent income loss that would make the residents as worse as the conflict are huge, even before the recent invasions. OK, so, uh, I would like to conclude, uh, we just showed that welfare impacts of conflict can be estimated from migration outflows. We need to have a migration elastic parameter properly estimated using instrumental uh variables, and we need to see the migration outflows before and after the conflict, but we don't need to see these outflows for all corridors. And the conflict in eastern Ukraine before the recent invasion significantly reduced the welfare. It is between 7% to 25% of their lifetime income. OK, thank you. Thanks, Johan. Um, Carol, I hope it's OK if we go just to the next one and then we'll, we'll bring you in after the three short presentations. Thank you. Uh, over to you, Klaus. OK, thank you, thank you very much. Uh, I'll go to the actual conflict and uh talk a little bit about the impact on the agricultural sector, and this is a paper that draws on the ideas of many people, as you have seen. I think I have 3 objectives. The first one, I think, as Erhan mentioned, we need data, so I will demonstrate the use of imagery to assess the conflict and its impact on area grown at village level in near real time. Second, I link that to survey data to assess the welfare and distributional aspects and the scope for intervention, and we then try to illustrate how a digital farmer registry and linked to administrative data can complement that to target, deliver, and also evaluate agricultural support quickly and transparently, and I hope that I will be able to do that in 15 minutes. So that of course one issue is the data. This is a high resolution image on the craters that are created by ordnance. If we look at that with freely available imagery, we have three types of damages. One is burns, and so here you see the time time series of 3 sets of imagery. In the middle one you see where the fire is actually burning. And then the burned area on the right hand side, the same, this is also burns. The second type of issue is that whatever heavy vehicles actually drive on your fields, and the third type is that you have this ordnance and artillery fire. This has all been done by a local university. Classification in 2 means using Sentinel 2 freely available imagery for the entire period. And so the data that we got is here we compared that with open source data that the ministry is making available on the At village council levels, I think all of this data is aggregated to 10,500 village councils. Clearly what is evident here is that our data, I mean, so I think the first one is the ministry data. It's much higher than what we have, of course that is expected because you don't, you may have conflicts in urban areas that don't filter down to the rural areas or they don't cause field damage and it's also very weakly correlated. We also compared that with the ACL data, which is the standard of conflict data globally. On the picture here, I think the Alet are the green dots, and clearly what is our data is both, I think, more granular. It illustrates the severity of the damage better and of course Alet is pushed, pulled into the next village or the next settlement, so that's why we have the settlement boundaries. So I think the location is also less precise. Than what we have, then the second source of data is the national crop classification map that we have been doing already before, and that I think it links with what Iran, I think that is for 4 years available nationally, and the colors are different crops. This has been done completely based on remote sensing, no data from the government at all, 3.3 million fields based on sentinel imagery. And of course the interesting part, and I will come to that a little bit later, is that we can link that to the cadaster to get any farmers so we can identify from the cadaster the farms, the parcels that any farmer cultivates so we know their crop history for the last 4 years, which is something that is quite interesting for the banks, of course, because if you have non-banked people who At least you can see what they grew and also you can get some estimate of the yields based on NDVI and others, and I show that you can also of course automate crop insurance and that provides a basis for carbon credits. So I think there are quite a lot of applications and of course it's also interesting for village councils to actually plan in terms of reconstruction and putting these data together, I think this is just to frighten you. What we get is that essentially I think we have for the 40 that compared to other what they call consensus estimates that are very weakly documented such as USDA. Uh, the area impact that we see is much less, um, but we see clear differences between, so I think the panel A is the national million hectares, so in 22 we have 8.3 and 17 million, 8.3 winter crops, 17 million summer crops. Which is a little bit 11 or 5% less than the national average for the 4 years before, for the three years before, but at the village council level, of course there is a clear difference, and so we have both the crop damage, the villages with crop damage, and the villages where there is any conflict reported, and it shows that our data is actually more precise. Um, but of course, and I think then of course since we are talking agriculture, we also need to take the climate into account. This is only to show that 22 was a very dry year, um, and I don't want to bother you with GDDs and all these things that the agronomists deal with in terms of the methodology, what we estimate is the area cultivated with winter or summer crop. We also estimate yields for the winter crops, but that I don't want to cover here. We have a conflict indicator which is this one here, so this is the area damaged that will give us the direct conflict effect, and we have a set of that X is a village that is GDD rain plant in different seasons and higher growing higher order terms. And then we have a time dummy and under the assumption that with village fixed effects and our climatic variables we control for everything that will give us the macro impact of the conflict. And of course what we can then do is we can simulate this with and without the macro effect or with different putting different weather variables in there. And if we do that, and so I think that is the and aggregate that in whatever ways we want to use this. So just to show you the regressions, I think there's nothing really extraordinary there, but we see both for the winter crops, both very significant impacts of the direct damage. In terms of the conflict indicator, open source data as well, a very negative, and we see a very negative year effect which all come together. And of course for the summer crops we see the same thing. I think for the summer crops we can distinguish, of course the winter crops were planted before the conflict started, so the area affected, the direct conflict effect on the area should be less. Um, and we also, and I think an interesting part that is here is that the winter crop area, there's actually some compensation for catching up in terms of where winter crop was either destroyed or failed. People started growing summer crops and of course that testifies to the resilience of the sector. In terms of the predicted areas, I think this is just then plugging in these estimates and extrapolating. So I think we find if there would have been no macro and no conflict, we would have been 9 million hectares of winter crop. The conflict and macro effect is about slightly 9.5%, and we can of course separate this out in terms of both the net conflict and the macro effect separately. I think we have similar figures here for the or a slightly higher effect, 13% for the total conflict effect in for the summer crops, and of course we can distinguish that and I think of course one interesting part is that we can actually distinguish areas that are occupied by Russia versus areas that are in the Ukraine proper. There are a couple of extensions which I will not bother you. Instead, what I will do is go briefly into some preliminary evidence from a survey that we have been doing to actually get some of the welfare and distributional effects, 2500 farms, the phone survey, national coverage, and different size strata so we can look at differences across the farm size spectrum. Um, I'll show you three slides. The first one is on the welfare. What we see very clearly is a dramatic drop in terms of people's perspective from, so I think we asked them a ladder of life between 1 to 10, how do you judge your personal and the country's situation? Uh, it's particularly bad in the east and in the center, and of the west, surprisingly we went from the, from the worst to actually being the best, uh, growth best perspectives. Second, but what is quite interesting is that the country continues to function surprisingly well actually. Social assistance increased or the share of people getting, and I think it was actually targeted quite well to the smaller farmers, and also non-agricultural income also continues to be paid, but of course the wars resulted in significant damage to land and structures which is about equal to the. What we get from the imagery in the east and the north, but that also is geographically concentrated in terms of the product. But of course what we see, so if we look at the changes in area, we get about 12% from the survey data, which is quite close to what we get from our imagery analysis, which is of course gives us some comfort. Interestingly, that is all concentrated in the large farms, all of the small guys. are actually cultivating the same area, but we see about 20% in terms of drop of physical yields, and we see a very dramatic drop in terms of market integration. I think we used wheat because that would have been marketed by now, so clearly that is all of the channels of exporting despite the grain deal and whatever. It filters down significantly to the farm level, which of course means that prices also have been dropped, dropping significantly, and that of course that reinforces the pre-existing differences across the farm size groups. And of course I don't want to go into profits and production functions here, but just how to, how does that actually link then to to perspectives and the longer term outlook. Interestingly enough, we expected a lot of people actually willing to get out like what Erhan said. I think of the farm, it seems that agricultural fundamentals are still very strong. Only 4% are ready to sell the land and at a price well above what is the market price, almost 80%. And if you take out some of the small farms who are probably going out of farming, in any case, more than 80% are willing to buy land and with a willingness to pay that is in line with pre-war prices. So that is quite interesting. Also, we see, um, and then of course I think some in terms of background, the World Bank has been pushing very hard for opening of land sales markets in 2021. That was done in July 2021, just before, so almost just before the war started. What we see is that there is all the credit except for the smallest farm sized group, which is probably going to consumption is going to working capital, so there is no long term credit market at all. Access to credit is extremely size biased. It's the big guys who are getting that, and they're also paying much less interest because the government is subsidizing this interest. So of course that means that the mechanism in which the government support is being distributed. Invariably means, I mean, you need to get a loan and then the bank asks the government to reimburse for the interest on that loan. Of course that means none of the guys who are not credit worthy will ever get any access to that, and that is something that we are definitely we are discussing with the government to actually change that with the land market and with being able to use land as a collateral. Actually that is, and especially given that we see the high demand for borrowing. It's definitely something that is important, but of course what is interesting is that borrowing is not the only constraint. I think we asked farmers what they would actually the government want to do. And the most the top priority was to regulate the input prices because there is very little transparency and they're being ripped off. So that brings me to the last point, and I hope I still have 3 minutes left to do that. So the government response, one of the immediate government responses with support from the EU was to establish a 50 million cash grant scheme. Establishing actually from scratch what they call a state agrarian registry, which was established in August, which essentially links to all of the registries both to the national ID system as well as to the registry of rights and the cadaster validates automatically if a farmer registers whether they actually have the land registered in their name. And then uses a cutoff point in terms of 120 hectares to establish eligibility and of course the 120 hectares needs to be in outside the conflict affected areas or outside the Russian territory to check eligibility and using the crop map that I showed you earlier to see whether that land was actually cultivated or not because they only want to give the money to farmers that actually cultivated their land. Surprisingly enough, I think the ministry told us nobody will take that thing and it will be a complete disaster. There was that whole program was completely dispersed within 10 weeks and by October, people actually received their grant. Interestingly enough, we have about 55. So of course that lends itself to doing some evaluation there and it was completely transparent and I think we actually had a Event yesterday with the minister where they was, I think the bombs were flying over them and they were in the bunker and I think they were quite happy about that. Of course what and unfortunately due to the electricity shortages, I cannot present you results already. But we hope that in the next couple of weeks we will get them, and of course we can then treat the parcels by treated and untreated farmers to see whether they plant it or not. We just have the first crop maps for the winter crop of the next 23 seasons, and of course we can do panel estimation and compare to neighboring farms to see. How to separate war from structural effects, so I think that could be quite interesting and of course that could also then help to inform future policies in this area. And of course, given that we saw significant imperfections in input markets as well and demand for technical assistance, of course that means that definitely and the government also sees it that way that this state registry could evolve into a central digital hub for the reconstruction in agriculture that can. And I think the banks are already asking us to pilot with that access both state support and also other types of support or credit processing because of course for them that provides a lot of potential of checking their customers. I think the one thing that is being discussed right now is access to the tax, to the past tax tax forms and statistical forms, and if the banks have that, I think that will be. Very, very positive. So I think to conclude, free satellite imagery provides an important basis for policy decisions in conflict situations because otherwise it's very difficult to go out into the field and and collect data and it can be done very quickly. But of course getting distributional and welfare effects will still require to get some additional information there. And I think what we see from the data that I've shown you is that the war exacerbates the pre-existing inequalities and that improving capital market and other market functioning could actually provide an opportunity to overcome this and of course that's where the link to digital registries and both provides an opportunity for program design and implementation, but also for targeting. And evaluation and so I think for example, one thing I mean from the cases that are actually doubtful in terms of cultivation, of course we can use them for training data to improve the predictions of the crop models. So I think there's a lot of potential synergies and obviously that could also provide opportunities for future bank operations and analytical support, which is something which we are discussing with our operational colleagues. Thank you. Thanks, Kaus. Obviously a very different uh perspective and now we have uh even a third different perspective, uh, over to you, Bob. OK. Thanks, uh, very much, and, uh, thanks for having me. So, uh, I think Claus's presentation leads naturally into my presentation which about is, is about the impact of, uh, the food price inflation that is induced by the war on household welfare in developing countries. So this is joint work with Erhan, uh, Guido, and Guillermo Falcone and also Paula is here, uh, who's helped us, uh, a lot. So, Immediately after the onset of the of the war, food prices spiked quite dramatically. So for instance, the price of corn in March was 53% higher than it was in January, and the price of, uh, sorry, the price of wheat was 53% higher. The price of corn was 23% higher. And that's because Ukraine and Russia are very important agricultural suppliers, so they supply roughly 25% of the world's wheat exports. Um, Russia is also very important, in fact, the most important exporter of fertilizer, and Ukraine, uh, accounts for an important share of, of oil seeds. And so in this presentation I want to focus on what the implications of sort of this this big shock are for households in developing countries. And in the first part I'm gonna take these price changes as exogenous. In the second part, we will actually have a model to simulate some of the impacts in which we endogen endogenize some of these price changes. So how do price changes impact households? Well, the impacts of course depend a lot on your consumption portfolios. And you know how you earn your living so as consumers higher prices are bad news. You have to pay more um for what you were consuming. As an income earner, higher prices are good news. So if you're a farmer, uh, or you're working in the agricultural sector, these higher food prices could in fact benefit you. And so for any given household, sort of the net effect of course depends on its consumption and income portfolios, at least in the short run if we do not allow adjustment in the longer term, households are gonna adjust their consumption and production patterns that's gonna impact trade. And so that will modulate the impacts that we're going to see. So it's very important if you wanna analyze these price impacts is knowing exactly what households consume and how they earn a living. Unfortunately, as a byproduct of an sort of earlier project that, uh, Aaron Guido and I have been working for on for now nearly a decade. We've put together Uh, household survey data sets. With extremely detailed price information. Uh, for like a very sort of granular set of products, more than 53 products. For 53 developing countries and the Ukraine. Uh, basically for all low income countries for which we could get these data, so the requirement for inclusion in these data is that the data have to be representative at the national level and they have to cover simultaneously both consumption decisions and income decisions because that allows us then to estimate, you know, the impact, uh, on any given households and so these data are publicly available you can download them, uh, directly. Here's the, the link. And so what we learned from these data, uh, which is something you probably already know, is that poorer households tend to spend a greater share of their budget on food items. And that means that they're more exposed to food price inflation. So just to give an example, the plots here show you how much they spend on wheat and corn respectively with red sort of their expenditure shares, and you can see that these are downward sloping and then sort of like the, the little green line at the bottom is the income share, so how much income they earn so poor households both spend more on, on, on wheat. And earn more from from wheat, but in aggregate, uh. The sort of their net budget share. Decreases uh as a function of their income and that leaves them more exposed similarly for for for corn. And so if we simulate the impact of wheat and corn price increases on real household incomes, not allowing for any adjustments, so these are first order short term impacts. Then what we see is that the average loss across these 53 developing countries is roughly 2%, but it's the poor that really suffered the brunt of this, so they see their incomes decline much more on average than than richer households. That is not to say that no households gain. So in this bottom, uh, quantile there are some households, notably farmers, people who produce these products, that, that will gain, but on average this impact is, is very, very negative. And so on the whole, food pliers inflation tends to erode real incomes and exacerbate inequality. Now of course you know these are results that are representative for uh basically. Low income countries, but you know as an individual staff member you may be interested in your own country. So what we have done or really what Erhan has done is uh built uh an online tool that allows you to do your own analysis to directly feed these price changes, uh, into, uh, this platform and then the website immediately gives you a sort of average welfare effects. So here's an example for Georgia. Simulating sort of the very price sort of changes that uh I just showed you and and showing how they impact the distribution of of income. So I, I, I hope that this is useful and I think what's neat about this is that even though sort of we developed this sort of with the Ukraine war in mind, in principle you can use this tool for any type of analysis that is going to impact prices. So if you think about VAT reforms or other types of shocks or subsidies, uh, I think this tool could be a very useful starting point. And of course the data are also publicly available. So if you don't like sort of what we've done or you want to make additional assumptions, do more complex modeling, it's all possible. So now I want to talk a little bit about our own modeling because one of the reasons why we see these price spikes is precisely because of supply disruptions that sort of Klaus uh talked about, but also because many countries responded to the war by imposing bans. So Russia banned uh a lot of its exports of wheat, corn, fertilizers, oil seeds, among others, and Ukraine trade initially was sort of stifled completely, but it also imposed bans. Uh, on its own exports and then over time we, uh, as sort of the conflict progressed, other countries started to respond. So we also saw export bans, for instance, in Georgia, Ghana, India, Moldova, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan. Maybe not all of these are, uh. Exclusively motivated by the war, uh, because remember that the food prices are already high because we're coming off of COVID, um. And perhaps because of climate change, but they, you know, definitely sort of coincided sort of with the evolution of this conflict. So To, uh, take these bans seriously and simulate their impact and also to simulate, you know, potential impacts of additional bans, we developed, uh, a state of the art trade model where the innovation is that we allow for heterogeneous households and adjustments. So, so what's really new here relative sort of to what's out there in the literature is that households are allowed to make supply and land allocation decisions. And um That's an innovation and so into this, uh, model we feed two types of data we use again, uh, our household impacts of tariff database to retrieve households income and consumption shares for different products and then we use trade data from the international trade and production database for estimation. And then we run two scenarios, the baseline scenario. It's simply that Russia bans export of a certain number of key commodities wheat, corn, fertilizer, sugar, and oil seeds. And that Ukraine is completely isolated in terms of its agricultural trade. And then in the second scenario we model the impact of retaliation. So this is other countries. That we know have imposed export restrictions, uh, uh, imposing these bans. So what are the results? Well, as you might expect, the extent to which like your food prices are gonna increase is gonna be very strongly correlated with how much you were trading with the Ukraine, uh, and Russia before the war and in particular the more you import for from the Ukraine and Russia, the higher your your prices are gonna be. So in countries like Armenia and Georgia we see really dramatic price increases and. The this, these price increases increases typically erode welfare, so, so the bigger the price shock, the more real income you lose. And Those sort of negative impacts are particularly pronounced for the poor. So if we look at sort of the average welfare of the top. 25% and compare that to the bottom 25%, you can clearly see. The poorer households lose more, which is of course because they spend a bigger share of their budgets on on food. But I think what's needed is sort of like a standard trade model wouldn't give you. These predictions So that is new here. So of course this map shows you sort of the the average impacts uh by baseline scenario and as you can see like the overwhelming majority of countries lose and some countries like Mongolia and Armenia lose quite a lot. On average they lose 2%. There are also a few countries that uh gain a little bit. So, uh, Pakistan and Iraq, uh, they gain. Why? Because they potentially can now ramp up their exports. Then when we all model the impact of sort of the additional uh export bans imposed by developing countries themselves, you can see that these impacts, these welfare losses. Tend to get aggravated. So in this scenario, average welfare drops by 2.2% points. And that suggests or this that this retaliatory protectionism, even if it could be in your own interest. Tends to amplify The adverse effect of of this crisis and that's something that we believe should be avoided. So to conclude, uh, this war induced food price inflation hurts most developing countries. I mean some gain, but they only gain a little bit. The impacts vary quite dramatically across developing countries and and depend a lot on your initial trade exposure. Food price inflation is disequalizing the poor suffer the most, uh, from this, and retaliate protectionism is making things worse and therefore should ideally be avoided. And to end I also really wanna highlight that sort of this database that we've put together. I really hope you will find it useful and we also have tools that you can use to to analyze the impacts on the countries you're working on. Thanks very much. Thanks, Bob. Um, clearly a running theme of exacerbation of inequality and, and, and hurting the poor. Um, with that, let's turn over to, to Carol, um, Uh, for her reactions and comments and, and, you know, both an apology and a thank you apology, you know, you got 33 very different sets of analysis here to, to, uh, to react to, uh, and thank you for taking that on. Over to you, Carol. Well, thank you Deonna, thank you everybody for inviting me. Uh, it is truly fascinating work and I very much enjoyed, you know, looking through the materials and now listening to the presentations. Um, I thought that I would do the following and hopefully this is useful for everybody. Um, I wanna talk a little bit first about what we are actually doing in Ukraine and, and use that information as kind of the background or the context to talk, you know, to sort of reflect a little bit. On the value added of of the kind of work that we're seeing here and how I see, you know, we are using it and we can use it further to solve some of the challenges that we are encountering in our engagement in Ukraine at the moment and then I have some specific reflections and sort of questions on each one of the presentations, um, so hopefully that hopefully that that works and, and it helps bring everybody on the same page in terms of where we are at the moment in in Ukraine. Uh, but I'm gonna be focusing, you know, with my new hat a little bit more on sort of the policy and operational implications rather than some of the technical aspects of the work, although I do have, uh, questions on that as well, and I'd love to follow up with the speakers. So let me start with, uh, just a very quick overview of what we've been doing in Ukraine over the last few months since the conflict started, uh, during the first few months of the conflict and up to basically about a month ago, most of our engagement. Has been in the form of fiscal support, right? Support to the budget to help the government breach uh what's at this point a very large fiscal hole. And a lot of that support has been focusing on pretty poor, uh, government services, uh, education, health, first respondents, and also supporting some of the social transfers and the pensions and Claus alluded a little bit to the, to some of the government programs that are in place to help, uh, farmers and the way this is done is, you know, they spend the money we reimburse them for it after we verify it. And we've actually managed to uh to sort of move uh quite a significant amount of resources that way about 8 billion to date, 12 billion if you count, um, what was done sort of in the very early phases and a lot of that is not necessarily World Bank resources, it's resources from other donors, primarily the US, but they're being channeled through the bank because we can provide that verification and we have this direct partnership with the Ministry of Finance. And I suspect that that will continue right this very direct sort of line into the budget over the next few months, but I think it's also become quite clear that um more is needed and particularly that we need to start thinking about supporting the recovery uh in in the parts of the country where the conflict is not at least open conflict. And really thinking about some priority areas for engagement where repairs can happen and where we can resume or bring up activity uh that has suffered from the conflict um so we've started to think a little bit more about that and we're at the moment focusing on health, energy and transport and you'll see how actually some of that relates quite directly to what we um talked about today and I think as sort of the next round of engagements we're probably looking into agriculture. Uh, possibly housing and education, so the idea here is to provide, you know, support in some of these critical areas to be able to disburse quickly, but now we are not in the space of really supporting service provision, really supporting sort of the purchases of equipment that has got, um, that's been damaged or destroyed and, and so on. So, that's what we are doing. In doing that, we've encountered several challenges, as you can imagine, and this is where, where the connection with some of the work starts to emerge. The first challenge is that if you're gonna support, you need to first have a sense for what are the impacts of the world, right? What sectors are affected, what are the losses in terms of assets, uh, you know, how are those geographically distributed, etc. right? I mean you need to get a little bit of a photograph, a picture of what's going on. To do that, um, we conducted what we call a rapid damage and needs assessment which tried to do exactly that, assess damages and then think about what's needed for recovery and reconstruction. That was done initially with data up to June and now it's being updated. With data up, up to January, but as you can imagine, this is not your regular piece of, you know, analytical work because it was, you know, difficult for us to be there because data is scarce, uh, because, you know, you can't quite conduct field work and, and so on. And at the same time, the design of some of these projects that I was talking about, it's obviously very highly dependent on having a good understanding for, you know, what are some of the priority needs, what are some of the locations that have suffered these damages and that we can go to, and also it's quite important for us moving forward to be able to monitor, you know, how the money that we are giving is used, whether the goods and services that are being purchased, uh, or financed, you know, are actually being delivered and so on. So in that context as I look through these presentations um I think a common theme that sort of runs through them from that perspective is first that in all cases the authors have been able to provide. Up to date information on various dimensions of the impacts of the conflict on households or on a specific sectors even in the absence of our ability to sort of be on the field so in that sense, you know, it's, it's, it really very nice illustrate very nicely illustrates how you can sort of, you know, triangulate and creatively use research and analysis to answer some of these very operational questions that we are dealing with at the moment. Related to that, I think it's also really nice to see how, you know, in, in different ways the authors have actually used. Data that is readily available, but maybe not the kind of data that we normally tend to think about, right? Like surveys, I'm thinking of clouds and, and sort of the images that he's using combining that with maybe data from the pre-conflict time and again using that combination and some economic modeling and analysis to provide um a very granular in some cases situ. You know, picture of what's happening on the ground. So in that sense again I think some of those commonalities were very interesting to me and I think, you know, I know in some cases I know Claus is very closely working with our education team, but it would be very important for us to ensure that that these connections are being made across, you know, all the different pieces with the teams that are working in the sectors. So that's in terms of, you know, where we are, uh, what are the challenges that we're facing and how I see the work presented today and similar work being extremely useful for us as we move forward in the region. Then, talking a bit more specifically about each one of the three pieces and some of the reflections that came to mind as I was reading through it. So let me, let me go in the order that they were presenting. So the migration work, um, you know, this is fascinating. I, I, I think most of you know this, but the war in Ukraine has really created a massive amount of displacement within Europe, uh, both within Ukraine, right? People leaving their, uh, hometowns and moving to other areas of the country that are considered safer, but also sort of leaving Ukraine and particularly moving into some of the countries of the EU, Poland, but also others, right? So, what are some of the, the questions that, you know, looking at the migration analysis for me came to mind? Basically reflecting on what's specific about this particular displacement, displacement episode because I think it looks somewhat different from other displacement episodes and migration episodes that we've seen in the past. First, when we look at who is moving, it's mostly women and children. So I wonder, and this is a question for everyone. What the role of demographics is in their analysis and, and demographics in the sense that some of those people are income earners, some of them are not, does that have an impact in how you think about those relationships that we described? We also know that because this is happening within a country that has a relatively sophisticated financial system and, and where people are were able to save before the war because you know income levels were such that uh that savings, you know, were possible for a large share of the population when people leave the country they actually still have assets have access to their financial assets, right, that is still withdrawing money from their bank accounts, uh, be it from other places in the country or actually from, from abroad either. Uh, and in many cases they've been able, or at least you know, anecdotal evidence suggests that they've been able to continue their work, uh, for those of them that were able to telework, uh, and in the case of kids, you know, they've been they've been sort of continuing their education because the Ministry of, um, Education in Ukraine very quickly put out, put, uh, together a. Sort of remote learning platform. So again, how do these considerations, um, how would that sort of help us understand the, the analysis on this relationship between mobility and income shocks, right? These are some things that are very specific about what what we're seeing there but uh that I think matter in how we interpret the results and then, uh, what are some of the emerging questions that we are facing as we think about how, how to support, uh, these groups. You know, we know there's been income losses, you talked about that as well, but we also know that there are, there's been loss of assets, right? Physical assets, we don't know the magnitude of that, but you know, houses are being destroyed, other things are being destroyed, so this would indicate, you know, given your analysis that, that we would be looking at sort of maybe larger flows but also maybe more permanent flows. I don't know it, it's sort of a question, how would you sort of think about that? Also, how do we think about sort of the short-term impacts, mostly on income and the long-term impacts potentially on human capital, right? They've been able to sort of supplement with this remote learning, but as we know from COVID, that's not a very satisfactory long-term solution. And then I was wondering if you could reflect a little bit on things that you mentioned in your introduction but maybe not talked about directly in the context of the analysis that is other things that may actually affect Both the decision to leave and the decision to return, and those are sort of safety considerations, uh, but also what we hear, for example, from a lot of the migrants, the people that have left is that they are paying attention to, for example, whether government services are resuming in certain areas, are schools back up and running. You know, our clinics, uh, again working and that's influencing their decision, not just whether they can go back to work or not. And of course there are family separation considerations and so on. So again, very interesting, I'm just, I'm just trying to map out, you know, what you're finding with some of the issues that we are grappling with. On the agriculture side, um, fascinating work again, Claus, and I know again you've, you've been sort of instrumental in some of the work we've done on this, on the rapid damage and needs assessment, um, and I completely agree with you that farmers at the moment are facing multiple constraints, right? There are rising cost of inputs, seed, fertilizers, there's lack of credit which you very directly talked about, but there are a couple of things that you didn't mention that I think are important. The first one is that. Because the war basically brought exports to a, to a halt, and, you know, Bob in a way reflected on this a little bit in his presentation. What happened is that the storage capacity in country is basically mostly taken up by last year's crop. So, when farmers think about, you know, dynamically, right? Planting and then what's gonna happen once they have their crops, they, they do realize that there's a shortage of a storage capacity, right? And they also realize that exporting their products for those of them who actually were market oriented, it's become significantly harder because of the conflict. So those are two factors that I think in addition to the lack of credit that you talked about are actually influencing or we expect will influence some of the decisions that that farmers are making and I wondered if, if there was a way to use your analysis to, to maybe tackle some of those um so in a way I. As we see the direct impact of the conflict which you talked about, right, in terms of destruction, you know, land being affected, damaged, des destroyed, and then there are sort of the indirect impacts, right, through credit, through storage, through markets, uh, we see farm, farm brigade prices having declined quite significantly. Um, so I was wondering whether, for example, I was thinking like how would you get to that, right? So I was thinking if for example, Is it possible to gather information with the kind of data you have about crops being left in the field, right? So maybe there are some farmers that on the basis of these restrictions are deci, you know, have decided that it's actually not worth to sort of, you know, harvest and, and because of these additional sort of costs that are coming, so it will be very interesting to hear about that. And then finally, uh, on, on the work on on inflation uh by Bob, um, you know, again fascinating, um, and, and you know with my previous sort of hat I've been reinforcing a lot of those messages that we've tried to get across many times that you know trade does have very important distributional um impacts, um, here. I think a couple of observations, I mean you pointed out that Ukraine and Russia were incredibly important in terms of global food markets and, and it's obvious that when, when they stopped supplying the graph that you showed, you know, we saw prices rising but also I think, and you didn't talk about that that much when, when the Black Sea route sort of reopened. Uh, we also saw them coming down, right, even though the supply did not reach pre-war levels, but obviously, you know, we had more stock in, in circulation, uh, and also there's been an effort to sort of channel some of those exports via Europe instead of the Black Sea. So hopefully all of that has eased some of the restrictions, and I was wondering if you've seen that in your analysis to the extent that you can have more recent, um, analysis of the, of the impacts on prices. But I guess there are two questions that have come to mind as, as we've seen kind of how, how this sort of resuming of exports has evolved. The first one is that I think we assume that as quantity varies, it's reaching sort of the points. that we wanted to reach, or, or I wonder if that's implicit in your analysis. So for example, there's been a lot of questions about whether You know, with exports resuming, are they really sort of reaching the countries that have suffered the most in your map, you know, Africa, say, or are, or are actually are those flows sort of staying in Europe or going being directed to other places? Is that something that you can capture with your analysis? There's also been quite a bit of talk about, well, what, what are these sort of grains that now we are able to put in the market? What is that being used for? Is that being used for food or is that being used for feed? And does that matter? Uh, so again, how do you take those things into account when you look at these price changes and you basically map those out into the distribution of, of income. And then the last question is looking at your first graph, when you had the prices, we already saw quite a bit of food inflation happening before the war and then of course that gets massively exacerbated. Um, so there's obviously more going on than just the word, and, and, and I wonder if you had any reflections on that and particularly on this whole dichotomy between, is it about availability or is it about distribution, right, which we've talked about a lot on this, uh, on this whole issue of, of food trade. Um, and what does that tell us in terms of, you know, how could countries manage these kinds of shocks a little bit better? I mean, we know these things happen periodically. Uh, so what are some of the risk management mechanisms that, uh, that could come to mind? Thanks. Let me stop there. That's super interesting again. Thanks, Carol. Lots of questions. Um, I, I propose we just before opening it up to general questions, we go back to each member, each presenter, uh, do one round. Is that OK? Maybe in the order you presented, um, so Erhan, thank you very much, uh, lots of stuff for us to think about, uh, great comments, uh, so. I would say some of the comments are about, for us to think about more, and some of them are about how we should think about the analysis. So I would like to distinguish between these two aspects. Uh, first of all, the, especially the part about heterogeneity is about the core of the analysis, and as Carolina mentioned, it is, uh, probably more women and women and children leaving the conflict areas. We saw that in the recent invasion, it was basically all women and children, and uh. Unfortunately, we don't have the exact, uh, demographics of the, of the. Uh, displaced people, we have a sub sample of them, and we can see that, uh, the ratio of women and children are a bit higher than others, but they are not as extreme as the recent invasion and the main problem for our analysis is we don't have this data for the before conflict, uh, flows, so that's why it's not possible for us to to make the analysis more granular, but. What the numbers we find are more or less a weighted average of different groups, and it is weighted naturally by the flows before the conflict, so I would imagine that the negative impact for women and children are a bit counter. Less since they were they were new movers so I think for that reason it's important to think of this as a as a general snapshot and an average and it is for sure uh a lower bound that that we want to emphasize it. Also, there are a couple of issues that At first thought they might seem to impact the analysis, but they don't. For example, whether the flows are temporary or permanent, whether they had assets in the region, and what the amenities and other things to help to impact their decision, all these things we don't need to know. Anything about these assumptions to calculate the welfare impacts. However, these are very important topics that we need to think about for a general picture, and this is one of the things that we studied in the police report to figure out. I think the Ukraine government was trying to help the people in eastern Ukraine and motivate them to move back and just keep the region productive. Uh, for those decisions, of course, the whether these decisions are permanent or temporary and how we can motivate them to return and what, how can we help them by helping their education and different amenities, maybe electricity, housing, water, and things like that. So that's, that's, that's an important big picture, uh, question, uh, about the assets in the other side and we know that before the recent invasion, the conflict was low intensity and people were moving. Back and forth from the conflict line, so the contact line was porous, and we know that many people actually stayed in Donbas region who were displaced from the eastern parts of Donbas and they would and even those who are in the uh separatist controlled areas would go back, make daily trips to the other side to withdraw their pension and salaries and things like that. So for that reason, I think many people stayed in that region and uh and we don't use those numbers so we use the uh the the flows to other regions for for that purpose. Uh, and I think that's, that's all. Thank you. Because Yes, so thanks a lot on the storage question. I think definitely what we see for the summer crops is relatively short term. On the other hand, I think that storage is probably overrated. I think, I mean, they're exporting, I mean, we heard yesterday from the minister they're exporting 9 million tons per month through the, even despite the grain blockage, so they actually expect the silos to be full, actually, and, and of course the donors have been rushing in there. I think Canada, Japan, whatever, they provided 6 million tons of mobile storage, which are these silo bags that you can put on the field. Actually, I mean, they're running that thing through the agrarian registry. If they give us data on who actually got the storage, we can evaluate whether that has any impact or not. And or whether these people, and of course we do see in the longer term, and that's why I was referring to the winter crops, we see a significant drops, a drop in terms of winter crop sowing that is certainly something farmers are sitting on the fence to see what is going to happen during the in the until the spring, because even if you don't plant now, and of course it's a rational decision not to plant now because you're tying up a lot of capital. So I think they can substitute for that with summer crops or in the spring. So I think that will definitely be what will happening until then will be a significant determinant. But I think what is important is that, I mean, and there the war, I mean that we had already hoped that the land reform will provide a basis for diversifying the agricultural sector in Ukraine a little bit because I think even globally. I mean, you don't see anywhere farms as large as in Ukraine. That was one of the reasons why I got into Ukraine in the first place, because I was surprised and I didn't, I didn't get any enlightenment yet, so I think, and I mean people there, especially before you had before the land market worked, I mean there was no, no investment, it's only 5 annual crops, it's soybean, it's Wheat, sunflower, and maize, and that is what they grow year in, year out, which is very damaging to the, I mean, I think they're mining the soil, or at least there is some soil mining going on that is in terms of long term fertility and of course it's very labor extensive, so I think what we are seeing, and that's where I think that 50 million grant that the EU provided was actually quite interesting because all of that went to people. I mean, We did some very, I mean, our team did some checks. They are doing strawberries, they're doing raspberries, they're doing very high value crops and with drip irrigation and that of course that generates very high returns and that is something that I think you can actually, especially in the areas that are not conflict affected right now and even if and if there is credit, I think we had. I mean, so I think if, if the financial sector works, you can actually draw in a lot of private capital to support that diversification, and that is something that I think there are huge opportunities despite the war going on because a large part of the of the country is not really that much affected by the conflict. Thanks, over to you, Bob. Yeah, thanks, Carolina for the excellent questions. So it's indeed true that, uh, prices have come down. Uh, quite a bit after, uh, sort of these restrictions on trade and experts were, uh, alleviated, but we believe that sort of the initial jump in prices reflects both. Uh, supply disruptions, but also stockpiling and uncertainty, and those two latter forces, stockpiling and uncertainty, are not forces we capture very well with our model. So when we sort of do a sort of a calibration exercise and we try to verify whether the price changes predicted by our model match those that we observe in reality, we see that they're slightly lower, like ballpark, you know, they're in the same ballpark but they're lower, and we think that's because, you know, our models abstracts from these, these considerations. Um, so to answer your question sort of. Is food really reaching these developing countries? I don't have a good answer to that. Yes. Like, usually we would, for instance, like look at the Comrade, but Those data are not sort of uh up to date yet so we'll only be able to tell in a in a few months from now and your second question, you know, as to sort of, you know, the sort of broader longer term impacts on on uh food markets, for instance, sort of the, the evolution of the pandemic and, and, and climate change. Uh, my sense is very much that those have like contributed to, to sort of persistently higher, uh, food prices. So for instance, in the FT today sort of there's an article talking precisely, uh, about this in principle, sort of, you know, our model, uh, would accommodate, uh, this type of, uh, shock. So I think sort of framework we have set up sort of, uh, lends itself to, to sort of analysis of these, but we haven't explicitly. Uh, incorporated these because we wanted to isolate, uh, the impact of, of the war but there's no question that they're of course very, very important. Thanks everyone. Carol, I will, I will come back to you, to give you a chance if you have any reactions to any of these, but we have one question online, uh, but I wanted to see if there's any questions in the room. Um Maybe we'll go to, to, to Korum, who's online on the Webex. Khuram, are you still there? Do you want to come in and ask you, you had two questions. If you could pose them briefly. Uh, Korum, let me see, are you still there? Am I audible? Yes, we can hear you. Hello. Yes. My first question was that it has been stated in one of the presentations, the last one, I suppose, that the shortages in the global wheat supply would benefit Iraq and Pakistan. Uh, but now, uh, the government in Pakistan has been issuing warning, uh, signals of possible import of wheat around 5 million tons. Uh, next year because of a reduction in the sowing area of wheat crop due to the devastating floods. So how these two opposing hypotheses can be reconciled? So, this is my first question that can be answered. So why don't you go ahead with your second one as well and we'll do a roundup. OK. OK. My second question was that the diversion of the funds from the G7 countries and EU to the humanitarian and war effort in Ukraine has deprived the funds to the third world countries who are uh uh. Facing uh uh quite a bit economic meltdown because of, uh, uh, global food prices and also oil prices. Uh, so how can, uh, it can be said that these countries could It should also be taken as a factor in the analysis when the impact of the war is being studied, so this is my second question. Great, thank you. I, I guess, and then we had another question on YouTube, but I, I'll, I'll fold it into that second point, but if I could expand maybe. Both of these, um, on the first one, I mean, obviously there's a lot more going on, the floods in Pakistan case in point, but, but how do you see, you know, what you're isolating from your model in terms of all that? I mean, Carol already alluded to, oh, things are changing, how up to date is this? and uh what are your plans for expanding on this or or is is is is that sort of for future work for people to do through, through the online systems? And then the second question, I guess we could expand that a little bit to think more generally about, you know, there's a lot of players here. I mean, Klaus kind of alluded to that a little bit with the EU and other players. I mean, there was a question uh in, in, on YouTube about FAO, um. But I guess more generally and maybe I don't even know if there's really a question here and just how do we think about sort of maybe this is to Carol actually working in a space where there are so many players and maybe the question is where do you see the bank's role, I guess maybe let's put it that way. Let's make it sort of in, in the space of all these different actors responding in Ukraine. What is, I mean you alluded to that a little bit at the very beginning, but what, what do you see our role going forward over the sort of short to medium term? Uh, in this. So maybe, maybe, I don't know if Bob, you wanna sort of take that first one and then maybe Carol for the second unless Klaus you want to come in on, on the second. Yeah, so thanks a lot for the, the, the comment, uh, Khuram. So I should perhaps have stressed more that sort of in our model sort of we keep all these other factors like constant so we do not accommodate, uh, for instance, you know, unusual, uh, weather shocks. And of course they're very important, but that's precisely why we have sort of these country specific online, uh, tools that you can use sort of for your own, uh, analysis where those of us sort of a better knowledge of the, the specific country you're working on can actually use that information and simulate what the effect would be if you do take those type of events, uh, into consideration. So, Great. Carol, I mean, I realize it's a bit of an open-ended question to you and, and maybe a sensitive one, so please feel free to, to, to answer it in the way you'd like. It's now happy to say a few words. I mean, it's a really, it's a very fluid landscape, right? Because as you said, obviously Ukraine, I think has mobilized an enormous amount of support, it being uh considered part of Europe, of course, you know, the European Union and, and European actors are very focused on, on it, so is the US so, so there's lots of moving pieces, right, when it comes to helping Ukraine. So what's up, what, what role have we been playing within that landscape? Um. So, a couple of things maybe to say. First, we are, I think, the only game in town excluding local researchers, of which, you know, there are some who are doing work that is actually building an evidence base, and I include in, in that, the work that we just saw today and another work that I know. You guys are doing. I also, you know, mean by that the, the rapid, um, damages and needs assessment. So we are on what we are one of the few actors that is actually trying to bring some data and some evidence to the discussion on, on what support is needed, you know, in what sectors, what locations, what the magnitude of the impacts is, and so on. And of course, you know, this is a high capacity government, so they do have data themselves, you know, so in many cases we are doing that. Uh, together with the government, I mean, Claus was also alluding to his relationships with, uh, with the Ministry of Agriculture and others, but I think that's an important role that we are playing, right? Trying to, again, to the extent possible, have some of these discussions being anchored in, in data and evidence. And then the other role that, that we are playing, and this is obviously more And about the technical level because of course the political level, you know, follows uh a different sort of dynamic is. To the extent possible trying to ensure that that we are all somewhat coordinated, particularly around some of these very critical sectors where, where everybody's focusing, right? So energy is right now receiving a lot of attention because if you're following the news you all probably know that um the latest sort of Russian attacks are very focused on damaging the energy infrastructure uh because that's gonna have a pretty dire effect. In the middle of the winter, if heating is not available, electricity is not available, and so on. So, so, there are lots of sort of actors, you know, coming into that space, trying to help. And I think at the technical level, working with the fund, working with some of the other development banks that are active in Ukraine, we've tried to sort of put forward ideas that You know, that sort of help us all coordinate, you know, and play to our comparative advantage, but everybody's kind of aware of what, of what everybody else is doing and, you know, it's, it's super time consuming but it's helpful because ultimately, we are not duplicating, we are complementary, and, and again, you know, we're all ultimately working with the same actors and, and they are overwhelmed. I mean, we tend to forget. Because they're capable, very capable, but you know, we don't get them to forget that they're sort of fighting a war, right on the other side. So, you know, so you have to kind of modulate your expectations. And then, of course, you know, whatever we can, we are providing financial resources, although we are a little bit constrained in that space because, you know, Ukraine is not an either country, so they don't have access to either resources. And the bank, it's, uh, it was already quite exposed in Ukraine before the conflict and therefore the margin that we have for new lending is quite limited. So we've been very dependent, as I said in my introduction, uh, on, you know, countries being willing to put money for Ukraine and to channel that money through us. So a lot of what we've done on the financial side. Again, hasn't been with our resources, but it's been a facilitator role helping others that want to give to Ukraine, you know, manage that transaction and then putting some sort of controls and, and monitoring mechanisms around that. So that, that I think it's kind of the role that we are playing, but again it's a very fluid, uh, very, very fluid landscape and I suspect that things will continue to evolve over the next few months. Great. Carol, thanks. I, I, I actually think that's probably a good place to end the, the, the, the discussion. Um, I mean, fascinating to hear sort of the complexities on the ground and your reflections on how this kind of research both in terms of the tools that it's bringing and the results that it's bringing can sort of contribute to, to, to moving our agenda forward within the country and then as we saw also globally, um, So obviously this is the, this is, this is uh uh an ongoing and unfolding process of, of, of both what's happening on the ground and the process of, of providing tools and, and, and research and we hope to definitely to be able to, to continue doing that. So with that, thank you everybody for coming and for your attention, for those in the room and those online and uh please join me in thanking the presenters and our discussion today. Thank you.
showAllTranscripts
no
duration
PT1H24M47S
scene7File
worldbank/2022_12_06_DECRG_EconomicImpactsUkraineWar
scene7Domain
https://worldbank.scene7.com/
scene7FileAvs
worldbank/2022_12_06_DECRG_EconomicImpactsUkraineWar-AVS
title
2022 12 06 DECRG EconomicImpactsUkraineWar
description
2022 12 06 DECRG EconomicImpactsUkraineWar
showTimestampAndTranscript
yes
col-xs-12
col-sm-12
col-md-3
col-lg-3
col-xs-12
col-sm-12
col-md-7
col-lg-7
  • add-style
  • lp-body-content
The Russian invasion of Ukraine has had far-reaching consequences for human wellbeing, first and foremost for the citizens of Ukraine, but also for the world at large. Quantifying the costs of war is a challenging undertaking, given the lack of reliable data as well as the difficulty of capturing the complex welfare effects of war with typical indicators like GDP. In this Policy Research Talk on December 6, 2022, three World Bank researchers—Erhan Artuc, Klaus Deininger, and Bob Rijkers—used inventive methods and sources of data to paint a more complete picture of the appalling costs of war.
col-xs-12
col-sm-12
col-md-2
col-lg-2